An example of good guy with a gun

Originally posted by FishHead111
I take it you've never been carjacked.
Talk to someone who has and get their view on what it's like.

yes, i am sure it makes the carjacked very sad. sad enough that the carjacker deserves to be shot and lose the right to a fair trial.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, i am sure it makes the carjacked very sad. sad enough that the carjacker deserves to be shot and lose the right to a fair trial.

That depends. If the carjacker threatens your life, then in defence, you may take his. You may defend your life, by taking that of the one threatening yours. Of course you can give up, and depend on the good heart of the thief.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that's a discussion for another thread, i tried to not encourage it very much. just think that the carjacker would have gotten 5 years (or whatever is the punishment) prison time. from a qualified judge. after being given a fair trial where a trained prosecutor would have presented evidence and a however well trained defendant would have attempted to mount ...[text shortened]... ou shoot to kill)? that a human life was snuffed, and for what? does a carjacker deserve to die?

I think it's a bad to have ordinary citizens shoot carjackers because they could miss and shoot someone else or they could shoot someone who isn't a carjacker. But, if the correct carjacker gets shot, I'd chalk it up to sometimes people get what they deserve.

Originally posted by normbenign
The shooter was obviously not a "good guy". A real good guy, would not have risked hitting the innocent victim. I thought that would be obvious, to a casual reader. It is not the duty of a "good guy" citizen to intervene in every observed criminal act. That would be both excessively risky personally, and he's not trained to take that risk.

I have perso ...[text shortened]... the word. He was a trigger happy vigilante. End of story, until they find him and prosecute him.

"A real good guy, would not have risked hitting the innocent victim"
because as stalone/schwarzenegger/bruce willis/jason statham/etc have taught us, good guys never miss when shooting a gun.

also there is such a thing where you are absolutely sure you can't accidentally shoot the wrong and a civilian can totally figure out when such situation presents itself from the couple of times he went at a shooting range to shoot immovable cardboard targets.

"He was a trigger happy vigilante."
and if he had shot the "bad guys"? would he have been to good guy then? then he would have been the one who judged the situation correctly, didn't put anyone in danger except the bad guys, and stop someone from getting hurt.

Originally posted by FishHead111
I take it you've never been carjacked.
Talk to someone who has and get their view on what it's like.

I'm sure that no-one who's been carjacked has ever felt that their day would get any better if they were shot in the head by a gun-do-gooder vigilante who let the thieves get away.

Repeat: the victim got shot. Not the criminals.

Originally posted by normbenign
That depends. If the carjacker threatens your life, then in defence, you may take his. You may defend your life, by taking that of the one threatening yours. Of course you can give up, and depend on the good heart of the thief.

of course you have the right to defend yourself. of course that when being threatened you shoot them. that doesn't mean you have to by a psychopath about it and shoot at the smallest provocation.

Originally posted by quackquack
I think it's a bad to have ordinary citizens shoot carjackers because they could miss and shoot someone else or they could shoot someone who isn't a carjacker. But, if the correct carjacker gets shot, I'd chalk it up to sometimes people get what they deserve.

" But, if the correct carjacker gets shot, I'd chalk it up to sometimes people get what they deserve"

do they though? what other criminal act deserves the death penalty? shoplifting? purse snatching? drunk kid trespassing?

there are laws that give you the right to shoot someone trespassing on your property. does it mean you must automatically exercise that right?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I'm sure that no-one who's been carjacked has ever felt that their day would get any better if they were shot in the head by a gun-do-gooder vigilante who let the thieves get away.

Repeat: the victim got shot. Not the criminals.

Thanks but that has nothing to do with your blanket statement about it being insane to shoot someone carjacking you.

Ever heard of these two young people that got carjacked?

YouTube

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"A real good guy, would not have risked hitting the innocent victim"
because as stalone/schwarzenegger/bruce willis/jason statham/etc have taught us, good guys never miss when shooting a gun.

also there is such a thing where you are absolutely sure you can't accidentally shoot the wrong and a civilian can totally figure out when such situation present ...[text shortened]... correctly, didn't put anyone in danger except the bad guys, and stop someone from getting hurt.

Please, if anyone really believes the movie stuff, they are seriously mentally impaired. Your skill with a hand gun will be revealed at a shooting range.

If you aren't sure, you simply stay back, and don't present your gun, never mind fire it.

If......No the result would not have changed the conclusion. If he had threatened the jackers, disarmed them and called the cops, yeah he might have been judged heroic. As stated, he wasn't a good guy, wasn't a hero, might not have even been a legal gun owner, carrier. We won't know until if or when he's caught.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
" But, if the correct carjacker gets shot, I'd chalk it up to sometimes people get what they deserve"

do they though? what other criminal act deserves the death penalty? shoplifting? purse snatching? drunk kid trespassing?

there are laws that give you the right to shoot someone trespassing on your property. does it mean you must automatically exercise that right?

There is a huge cost in implementing out system. It costs money, time of jurors, witness etc. and our system is designed for one purpose: to get the right person.
If we actually get the correct person who is committing a violent act without using our process, I believe it's preferable to calling the police and having a high speed car chase or the victim chasing after the person (common legal responses) where the wrong person could get injured.

Originally posted by normbenign
Please, if anyone really believes the movie stuff, they are seriously mentally impaired. Your skill with a hand gun will be revealed at a shooting range.

If you aren't sure, you simply stay back, and don't present your gun, never mind fire it.

If......No the result would not have changed the conclusion. If he had threatened the jackers, disarmed th ...[text shortened]... might not have even been a legal gun owner, carrier. We won't know until if or when he's caught.

"Your skill with a hand gun will be revealed at a shooting range. "
are you being sarcastic? because if you believe this, you have no clue. the thought that shooting a cardboard painted like a cartoon villain in the center in perfect condition means you would do the same with a living, moving, shooting human being while people are screaming and dying around you and you know you can be next is absolutely retarded.

"If you aren't sure, you simply stay back"
the problem with that is that often people are sure, even though it is plain they are retarded. just look at all the youtube videos of people smashing their junk on hard objects because they were sure of something or just didn't care


"bla bla might not have even been a legal gun owner bla bla"
i am baffled at how you repeatedly miss the point even though i keep smacking you with it over the head. the problem is that you give someone a gun and tell him repeatedly that he can totally stop a bad guy with a gun. you also make laws that absolve that "good guy" of all blame in many circumstances. and stupid people will really believe that. like the guy in the OP did.

While the date is 1992 on this AP article, I am quite sure the stats are not that different today, maybe higher. Gun control is a public health issue in the U.S. At the very least, safety features and laws about keeping guns out of the hands of children must be enacted and enforced.

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
Shootings Rank Third in Child Death Causes
June 28, 1992 | Associated Press
Only auto accidents and drownings account for more accidental deaths among children than shootings, according to federal health authorities. From 1982 to 1988, more than 3,600 children under age 19 died in accidental shootings, most of which occurred at home, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Your skill with a hand gun will be revealed at a shooting range. "
are you being sarcastic? because if you believe this, you have no clue. the thought that shooting a cardboard painted like a cartoon villain in the center in perfect condition means you would do the same with a living, moving, shooting human being while people are screaming and dying aroun ...[text shortened]... e in many circumstances. and stupid people will really believe that. like the guy in the OP did.

You still don't have any idea of why you labelled this shooter as a "good guy"?

Originally posted by Phranny
While the date is 1992 on this AP article, I am quite sure the stats are not that different today, maybe higher. Gun control is a public health issue in the U.S. At the very least, safety features and laws about keeping guns out of the hands of children must be enacted and enforced.

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
Shootings Rank Third in Child Death Causes
J ...[text shortened]... ch occurred at home, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control.

Does that imply more pool and auto control?

Originally posted by normbenign
You still don't have any idea of why you labelled this shooter as a "good guy"?

i was being sarcastic. the point that you so stupidly miss is that a "good guy" with a gun has the potential of turning into a moron that just shot a bystander.