34 replies to this topic

[Hum]

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’s brother, raced after Hopkins and tackled him to the ground. Hopkins dropped the gun on the floor and the two struggled on the way out of the door. The brother managed to hold onto Hopkins until officers arrived on scene just a few moments later.

Officers arrested Hopkins for 1st Degree Robbery and 6 counts of 1st Degree Assault. They determined the gun inside the store was a stolen firearm. It had been reported stolen in 2002 from Bellingham, Washington. Hopkins is also a convicted felon, thus it is illegal for him to possess a firearm. He was also booked into jail for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Possession of a Stolen Firearm in addition to the previous charges.

source & video

[shakey]

Good thing this crime was prevented by REAL GUNS!

[theyarecomingforyou]

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

[*RedBull*]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 16:00, said:

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

Tell that to the 27 dead in Connecticut, Batman.

[theyarecomingforyou]

*RedBull*, on 20 December 2012 - 17:10, said:

Tell that to the 27 dead in Connecticut, Batman.

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? 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?

[warwagon]

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

[Astra.Xtreme]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 16:00, said:

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.

[SupportGeek]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 16:00, said:

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.

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 17:42, said:

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? 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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Astra.Xtreme, on 20 December 2012 - 17:55, said:

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.

SupportGeek, on 20 December 2012 - 18:08, said:

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.

[*RedBull*]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 17:42, said:

Are you trying to suggest that arming 6-7yr olds with guns would lead to a lower death toll? 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.

[shakey]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 18:12, said:

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.

*RedBull*, on 20 December 2012 - 18:22, said:

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.

[Astra.Xtreme]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 18:12, said:

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.

shakey, on 20 December 2012 - 18:26, said:

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

*RedBull*, on 20 December 2012 - 18:22, said:

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.

Astra.Xtreme, on 20 December 2012 - 18:41, said:

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.

Astra.Xtreme, on 20 December 2012 - 18:41, said:

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.

[shakey]

Astra.Xtreme, on 20 December 2012 - 18:45, said:

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?

[SupportGeek]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 December 2012 - 18:12, said:

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?