You could think of government workers like teenagers. You pay them an allowance, but do you get any work out them? They eat the food, put their feet on the furniture and complain loudly whenever they are unhappy.
I'm not so sure I agree with the wisdom of opening fire in a crowded BK but if it has to go down I'm glad it was the bad guy who got dead out of the arrangement. Fortunately for the good guy this is Florida so he'll be getting a medal of some sort instead of some ridiculous charge like he would in Kalifornia or similar...
I agree that the patron was kinda stupid. The patron shoulda just shot the robber with no warning.
You could think of government workers like teenagers. You pay them an allowance, but do you get any work out them? They eat the food, put their feet on the furniture and complain loudly whenever they are unhappy.
One thing you don't see here, I have not found it on the net but saw it as a blurb on the news was the mother of the dead robber was complaining that the guns laws were the reason her son was dead.
You could think of government workers like teenagers. You pay them an allowance, but do you get any work out them? They eat the food, put their feet on the furniture and complain loudly whenever they are unhappy.
Art Vandelay wrote:The "good guy" here is an idiot and is lucky that the "bad guy" is the only person who ended up dead from this.
Totally.
From the article:
The customer had a concealed-weapons permit
So it appears his training was good.
Now if you mean the "good guy" was lucky the criminal didn't shoot someone else, that can't be put on the "good guy's" actions as the criminal never should have had the gun in a Burger King to begin with. Had someone else been shot by the "bad guy", that's squarely on the "bad guy's" shoulders. Unless of course you're in the "I give up" mode where anytime someone flashes a gun, you become their... play toy (to put it nicely).
Personally I love stories like this one. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most crooks don't want to die doing what they do. If it's known that there's a good chance someone (or several people) in the Burger King, gas station, or wherever, has a gun, the crook is far less likely to commit their criminal act because they don't want to die.
I am the Reaper of Men, The Chaser of Souls, The Weaver of Nightmares, I am The Heart of Darkness. I now, and ever will be, The Purity of Evil.
Art Vandelay wrote:The "good guy" here is an idiot and is lucky that the "bad guy" is the only person who ended up dead from this.
Totally.
From the article:
The customer had a concealed-weapons permit
So it appears his training was good.
Now if you mean the "good guy" was lucky the criminal didn't shoot someone else, that can't be put on the "good guy's" actions as the criminal never should have had the gun in a Burger King to begin with. Had someone else been shot by the "bad guy", that's squarely on the "bad guy's" shoulders. Unless of course you're in the "I give up" mode where anytime someone flashes a gun, you become their... play toy (to put it nicely).
Personally I love stories like this one. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most crooks don't want to die doing what they do. If it's known that there's a good chance someone (or several people) in the Burger King, gas station, or wherever, has a gun, the crook is far less likely to commit their criminal act because they don't want to die.
You will be hard-pressed to find anyone who is a more staunch supporter of gun rights than I am, but the 'good guy' here acted like an idiot. According to the article, the 'bad guy' wasn't pointing the gun at anyone, he had simply shown the cashier that he had it and demanded money. Now that is still a threat, obviously, but it's not as if he was holding the gun to someone's head. If I were the 'good guy' (and I do have a concealed carry permit, though I rarely carry), I would have called the police, then followed the guy and intervened only if he were presenting an immediate and direct threat to someone's life, not some business' money. Instead, he gets in an argument with the guy (why would someone even start an argument with someone in the middle of an armed robbery?), then that leads to a gun fight in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Instead of taking a responsible approach, he put dozens of people in danger, nearly got himself killed, and killed someone over what was probably a few hundred bucks that was insured anyway.
Art Vandelay wrote:You will be hard-pressed to find anyone who is a more staunch supporter of gun rights than I am, but the 'good guy' here acted like an idiot. According to the article, the 'bad guy' wasn't pointing the gun at anyone, he had simply shown the cashier that he had it and demanded money. Now that is still a threat, obviously, but it's not as if he was holding the gun to someone's head. If I were the 'good guy' (and I do have a concealed carry permit, though I rarely carry), I would have called the police, then followed the guy and intervened only if he were presenting an immediate and direct threat to someone's life, not some business' money. Instead, he gets in an argument with the guy (why would someone even start an argument with someone in the middle of an armed robbery?), then that leads to a gun fight in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Instead of taking a responsible approach, he put dozens of people in danger, nearly got himself killed, and killed someone over what was probably a few hundred bucks that was insured anyway.
This one article is tough to base an opinion on. For all we know, the "good guy" casually told the robber that he didn't really want to do this, and possibly brushed back his coat/jacket to show he was carrying, at which point the robber drew his gun (and the "good guy" did as well), an argument ensued with the crook trying to take control and the "good guy" trying to get him to just leave, and then came the shots. Not saying it did happen that way, just that it very well could have. This article didn't get that detailed.
What is their definition of "crowded"? I read it said they were "usually crowded", but what does that mean? I went into a 32 lane bowling center one time and the guy behind the counter was running around like a chicken with his head cut off because he had all of 10 lanes (12 tops) going at once. About 1/3rd full, which isn't busy or "crowded" at all. And that's not uncommon at all in many different things. "Crowded" isn't precise enough to give a good description of how many people were in there. How far away were the two guys? I assume they were by the registers since the crook was trying to rob the place, so does it really matter how many people were way over in the seating area? Could have been 2 or 100, doesn't really matter.
Sitting back and letting someone rob someone isn't being responsible. It's letting crooks think they've got the upper hand and allowing crime to continue. And you know what, I've never heard a crook say he moved out of a neighborhood, or quit robbing such and such places, or quit commiting crimes in general because committing those crimes became "too easy". Crime doesn't go away on its own. It takes individuals, communities, and entire countries to get rid of it. In this particular case, one man had the ability to prevent a crime, and he did it. We need more people like him in this country.
If everyone is going to scream and run like scared little girls every single time a crook flashes a gun, this country is in very serious trouble. Yes, in this case an innocent person could have been shot and killed, and I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, while that would have been a sad and tragic thing, it would have served the greater good for the criminal in question to be shot and killed in the act, so I wouldn't have lost any sleep had an innocent person died in this along with the robber. Lots of things in life are that way. I was "supposed" to follow the family footsteps and be in the Air Force. If me dying in combat (provided an enemy was good enough to have shot me down) served the greater good of the United States, I was more than happy to serve my part. Unfortunately my eyes aren't 20/20 without my contacts and Lasik wasn't around, or else that's what my career path would have been (Air Force fighter pilot).
Your car and house are insured right? Going to just sit around and let someone rob you without putting up any kind of fight at all? I wouldn't think so, even moreso seeing as how you're a licensed gun owner. So just because the place/item/whatever is insured, that doesn't mean people should just let bad things happen that they could have prevented. Making criminal activity "easy" won't reduce the amount of crime out there.
I am the Reaper of Men, The Chaser of Souls, The Weaver of Nightmares, I am The Heart of Darkness. I now, and ever will be, The Purity of Evil.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by houstonherdfan » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:18 am 
I wouldn't think so, even moreso seeing as how you're a licensed gun owner. So just because the place/item/whatever is insured, that doesn't mean people should just let bad things happen that they could have prevented. Making criminal activity "easy" won't reduce the amount of crime out there.
