35 posts in this topic

Posted

SPOKANE, WA -- A bystander stepped in and tackled an armed robber late Monday at a North Spokane convenience store.

It happened around 7 p.m. at G & B Grocery near Crestline and Francis. A surveillance camera shows the robber, 25-year-old James Hopkins, wearing a ski mask and all black, entering the store.

Spokane Police Officers said Hopkins, armed with a handgun, demanded the clerk empty the cash register. As the clerk put the money on the counter, Hopkins pointed the handgun at six people inside the store including three children; two 12-year-olds and a 13-year-old. He then fired off a round into the ceiling then attempted to run from the scene.

One of the customers, who happened to be the clerk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good thing this crime was prevented by REAL GUNS! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This just shows you don't need guns to defend yourself against an armed robber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This just shows you don't need guns to defend yourself against an armed robber.

Tell that to the 27 dead in Connecticut, Batman. :rolleyes:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tell that to the 27 dead in Connecticut, Batman. :rolleyes:

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? :huh: Or perhaps you're suggesting that every teacher should be armed and trained how to use weapons but then where do you draw the line? Does everybody have to be armed just to be able to get throw the day without being shot up? Yet that neglects the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. And what happens if a teacher gets stressed and because they're armed decides to lock the door and then shoot up their entire class?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

he was using a stolen gun? Ya don't say.......

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This just shows you don't need guns to defend yourself against an armed robber.

Maybe. It's still much easier to defend yourself from a gun with a gun. Very few people would have the balls to do why that guy did.

Also goes to show that no law in the world can stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun.

If people in the store would have been concealing a weapon, this would have been over in 10 seconds or would have never happened in the first place. Notice that robberies happen most in places where they know everybody is unarmed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This just shows you don't need guns to defend yourself against an armed robber.

You would have been right had he attacked the robber while the gun was pointed at him.

Except in this case there was no defense involved, the robber was fleeing and he jumped him from behind.

Its a victory to be sure, but has less to do with not needing a gun than it did that he ambushed the robber when he was leaving.

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? :huh: Or perhaps you're suggesting that every teacher should be armed and trained how to use weapons but then where do you draw the line? Does everybody have to be armed just to be able to get throw the day without being shot up? Yet that neglects the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. And what happens if a teacher gets stressed and because they're armed decides to lock the door and then shoot up their entire class?

Nothing is stopping a teacher from doing that now in any country, if they were going to snap and shoot kids, they would bring a firearm and do so, arming them in the classroom wont change the odds someone will snap like you claim. Yours is a terrible argument against arming teachers.

A better argument is that most teachers would likely not carry firearms even if they were not prevented by GFSZ, the type of personality that most teachers are is more of a liberal mindset, and those kinds are usually by nature predisposed against firearms for whatever reason, most commonly fear. So trying to arm them with firearms is an effort in futility, They may be more predisposed to carrying a tazer and/or pepperspray however, Id be more prone to allow for that to be available as an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also goes to show that no law in the world can stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun.

Yes, but if firearms were properly restricted in the US then it would be very much harder to obtain them illegally.

You would have been right had he attacked the robber while the gun was pointed at him.

Except in this case there was no defense involved, the robber was fleeing and he jumped him from behind.

Its a victory to be sure, but has less to do with not needing a gun than it did that he ambushed the robber when he was leaving.

Most robbers don't want to shoot anybody, as that makes it much harder to escape capture. There is no need to defend yourself if your life isn't at risk - you simply let the armed robber take what they want and rely on the police to catch them after the fact.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? :huh: Or perhaps you're suggesting that every teacher should be armed and trained how to use weapons but then where do you draw the line? Does everybody have to be armed just to be able to get throw the day without being shot up? Yet that neglects the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. And what happens if a teacher gets stressed and because they're armed decides to lock the door and then shoot up their entire class?

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people. Someone with a gun could've put him down easily. Nice of you to take things out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, but if firearms were properly restricted in the US then it would be very much harder to obtain them illegally.

Most robbers don't want to shoot anybody, as that makes it much harder to escape capture. There is no need to defend yourself if your life isn't at risk - you simply let the armed robber take what they want and rely on the police to catch them after the fact.

Pro Gun guys just can't seem to grasp the idea that if you limit the supply, make it illegal, and harder to get, that the product will be harder for the "average" to get, and will only lay in the hands of the really hard criminals, which you wouldn't win against even if you had a gun yourself.

So you want a gun to protect yourself from a gun.... can i get a missle to protect myself from one? Can I get a bomb? Can i get some plutonium? If we are to protect ourselves against the illegals who get everything anyway, why should we limit what we can protect ourselves with...... oh ya, because most people who got their drivers license doesn't even deserve it, and having something that can take the life of others in a instant is a responcibility most people can and shouldnot have.

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people. Someone with a gun could've put him down easily. Nice of you to take things out of context.

First, it took that guy roughly 1 hour to commit that horrible act. 1 hour to stab a lot of people. Those are much better odds than if he had a gun and an hour to shoot away. He would have probably actually killed many more people.

Just because crimes happen, doesn't mean you need an item that instantly stops it. Bad things will happen, its the degree of how bad it is that matters. A gun would bring a degree of death to this situation that would have made that knife attack seem like childsplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, but if firearms were properly restricted in the US then it would be very much harder to obtain them illegally.

What are you going to restrict? Guns are used by the military, hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc. Unless you completely take away every single gun in the country, there will always be an easy way to get a hold of one. And even so, what's to stop somebody from going to Canada or Mexico and smuggling them in? Gun laws only hurt the honest because the criminals never cared in the first place and will always find a way. If guns are magically gone, criminals will use knives, explosives, or any other form of weapon. Guns are only one of many easy ways to inflict damage.

The only law that can potentially prevent crime is one that levels the playing field of honest citizens with that of the criminals. They will think twice about holding up a bank or store if they know they probably won't walk out alive, much less any money.

Pro Gun guys just can't seem to grasp the idea that if you limit the supply, make it illegal, and harder to get, that the product will be harder for the "average" to get, and will only lay in the hands of the really hard criminals, which you wouldn't win against even if you had a gun yourself.

There's nothing difficult about obtaining a weapon illegally. Limiting the supply only hurts the honest population.

Marijuana, cocaine, etc. are all illegal, but have never been difficult to obtain. Do you know the reason why? Importing...

Whether you take away all the guns here, every other country in the world still has them, and you can bet they will find their way over here in a heartbeat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people.

I hadn't heard about that one. Link? The most recent school attack involved in China involved 23 children being stabbed and they all survived - in fact the link states that all the attacks between 2010 and 2012 amounted to 21 deaths, which is less than the single attack in Connecticut. It's simply ridiculous to suggest that knives pose as much risk to life as firearms, especially for killing sprees. It's not a credible argument.

What are you going to restrict? Guns are used by the military, hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc. Unless you completely take away every single gun in the country, there will always be an easy way to get a hold of one.

You'd base gun restrictions on those that have been successful in countries like the UK and Japan.

And even so, what's to stop somebody from going to Canada or Mexico and smuggling them in?

Border patrols and law enforcement. That's how guns are stopped in other countries.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What are you going to restrict? Guns are used by the military, hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc. Unless you completely take away every single gun in the country, there will always be an easy way to get a hold of one. And even so, what's to stop somebody from going to Canada or Mexico and smuggling them in? Gun laws only hurt the honest because the criminals never cared in the first place and will always find a way. If guns are magically gone, criminals will use knives, explosives, or any other form of weapon. Guns are only one of many easy ways to inflict damage.

The only law that can potentially prevent crime is one that levels the playing field of honest citizens with that of the criminals. They will think twice about holding up a bank or store if they know they probably won't walk out alive, much less any money.

There's nothing difficult about obtaining a weapon illegally. Limiting the supply only hurts the honest population.

Marijuana, cocaine, etc. are all illegal, but have never been difficult to obtain. Do you know the reason why? Importing...

Whether you take away all the guns here, every other country in the world still has them, and you can bet they will find their way over here in a heartbeat.

You can grow marijuana and other drugs. You can not grow guns. You have to actually make them. Much harder, much more expensive. Also then you have to make the ammo. Comparing drugs to guns is dumb.

There is nothing difficult at the moment to obtain a weapon illegally. If you actually stopped production a good bit, put regulations/restrictions, and other such sanctions upon them, then they would become a whole lot harder to get. It's called cause and demand. As the cause makes it harder to get, the demand while it may be up, will cause the prices to skyrocket, making only the really wealthy criminals able to get them.

But again, if the criminals can get a hold of anything illegal anyway, why not start protecting yourself against bombs and bio attacks? Why stop at just guns with your argument of protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Most robbers don't want to shoot anybody, as that makes it much harder to escape capture. There is no need to defend yourself if your life isn't at risk - you simply let the armed robber take what they want and rely on the police to catch them after the fact.

Are you just assuming this, or do you personally know some and asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you just assuming this, or do you personally know some and asked?

They'd just shoot everybody on sight if they didn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Pro Gun guys just can't seem to grasp the idea that if you limit the supply, make it illegal, and harder to get, that the product will be harder for the "average" to get, and will only lay in the hands of the really hard criminals, which you wouldn't win against even if you had a gun yourself.

So you want a gun to protect yourself from a gun.... can i get a missle to protect myself from one? Can I get a bomb? Can i get some plutonium? If we are to protect ourselves against the illegals who get everything anyway, why should we limit what we can protect ourselves with...... oh ya, because most people who got their drivers license doesn't even deserve it, and having something that can take the life of others in a instant is a responcibility most people can and shouldnot have.

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment. They also dont seem to understand that owning firearms for self defense has already been affirmed by the SCOTUS.

I also like the hyperbole they use "Can I get a nuke to defend against a nuke?" Do home invasions or muggings take place with the criminal armed with missiles? Or are they armed with firearms and knives?

Ownership statistics and basic reasoning would fly in the face of your "its a responsibility that most people shouldnt have" thought, since MOST people store, handle and keep their firearms in a safe manner. If you were right, the 80+ million firearms owners would have wiped everyone in North America out a long time ago.

You can grow marijuana and other drugs. You can not grow guns. You have to actually make them. Much harder, much more expensive. Also then you have to make the ammo. Comparing drugs to guns is dumb.

Ever made a firearm? I have, its not anywhere CLOSE to as hard as you would have other believe.

3d printing is also a couple of years from changing that idea yet again, where it will go from already moderately easy to clicking "print"

Also reloading ammo is simple too.

In fact, it takes a lot MORE effort to grow a decent marijuana plant than it does to manufacture a firearm.

So he has a valid point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You'd base gun restrictions on those that have been successful in countries like the UK and Japan.

The US is much much more diverse and there are many times more poor people here, which is mostly correlated to the violence.

The more crimes per capita here isn't just attributed to the abundance of guns. There are a lot of rich here and a lot of poor here, which causes a lot of aggression as you could easily see by our political diversity. Guns don't commit crimes, people commit crimes.

Border patrols and law enforcement. That's how guns are stopped in other countries.

There's too much coastline to protect in this country. If guns become illegal, they will be smuggled here on the same boats and semis as drugs are. Actually it would probably become huge in the black market since guns would bring a bigger profit than drugs.

Regardless, none of it even matters because guns will never completely disappear. Until they do, it will never be difficult for criminals to get one. I would first say good luck at trying to dismantle a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment.

Show me where it says hallow point, assault rifle, high capacity mag in the constitution ? You cant . By this logic limiting citizen access to machine guns is a violation of the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Show me where it says hallow point, assault rifle, high capacity mag in the constitution ? You cant . By this logic limiting citizen access to machine guns is a violation of the second amendment.

Those items fall under "Shall not be infringed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The US is much much more diverse and there are many times more poor people here, which is mostly correlated to the violence.

In which case you need to raise taxes on the rich to improve quality of life for the poor. Considering that the US is supposedly a Christian country there shouldn't be any issue with getting support for such a plan. There really isn't any excuse for such wealth inequality, especially given the GDP per capita for the US is higher than virtually any other country.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Those items fall under "Shall not be infringed"

What about rocket launchers, turrets, grenade launchers :rofl:

There is no second amendment issue not with the previous relegation and not with the upcoming regulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people. Someone with a gun could've put him down easily. Nice of you to take things out of context.

If you are referring to the news 5 days ago a Chinese attacked and injured 22 kids in school, you are seriously twisting the fact.

Do you actually believe what you've said? Stabbed 70 people? For the sake of science, I want you buy 70 apples and cut them in half. Tell me how long it takes, not mention you have to chase the kids down to stab them. Killed more than 30 people? with knife? Again, for the science, I want you to use a bigger knife, buy 30 watermelons, and stab those. Tell me how long it takes and how much effort you need.

Do you guys just pull the numbers from your behind and plug it in some generic "people kill people" conundrum?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What about rocket launchers, turrets, grenade launchers :rofl:

There is no second amendment issue not with the previous relegation and not with the upcoming regulation

Grenade launchers can be had with a tax stamp IIRC. Rocket launchers too, the launchers themselves are in limited supply iirc though so its usually purchase cost that causes the prohibition. Turrets are perfectly legal, they are not a weapon in and of themselves.

As far as what is and is not an issue with the second amendment, you need not take my word on it, nor will I take an outsiders word on it either.

Ultimately the issue will end up decided in the courts, regardless what tries to get passed, and with recent SCOTUS decisions, it doesnt look good for passing much more than a magazine size limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anti-gun guys cant seem to understand that limiting supply and making firearms illegal is a violation of the second amendment.

Yea something written hundreds of years ago must still be relevant and hold true today. A law passed to help defend America from invasion because it had no Army is still relevant, anyway doesnt it state this to allow the people to bear arms in "Well regulated Militias"?

If you're willing to endanger lives so you can continue to remain sentimental over a piece of paper that's already been amended plenty, go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.