Legally Armed Customer Shoots Ak-47 Wielding Robber

[Brewman 1,192]

I take it you know what devils advocate means , so I`ll skip that bit.

 

He placed himself in harms way for no reason at all. He risked leaving his wife a widow so he could have a go at shooting a man with a machine gun. What part of that is clever or wise ?

I know what it means but from the info given it seems fairly black and white.

If he didn't challenge him maybe he could have left himself a widower if the crim had shot his wife improbable but it could have been possible.

The citizen could possibly have had police/military training or maybe was that fcuked off he felt he had to do something.

[Born Hunter 17,780]

I take it you know what devils advocate means , so I`ll skip that bit.

 

He placed himself in harms way for no reason at all. He risked leaving his wife a widow so he could have a go at shooting a man with a machine gun. What part of that is clever or wise ?

Americans, particularly Texans often pride themselves on their independence and in all probability considered such an act their civic duty. Do we or you really know anything about the Individual? You've decided he was a gun toting redneck that wanted a kill, personally I think you are a mile off in understanding these people's mindset.

[boyo 1,398]

Fair play to bloke who shot him hand gun v's Ak47 like a chihuahua taking on a Bull cross!! Man went in armed got what he deserved. Atb

[kanny 20,639]

 

Although I agree people should have the right to defend themselves and there property .but nobody seems to be picking up on the point that this robber had a Ak-47 i presume legally held? And for me this is the problem with American gun law .I can't see any justification for high powered automatic weapons especially if any numpty can get there hands on them ...keep it real.

The second ammendment wasn't written to protect a citizens right to defend themselves or hunt, it was written to protect against tyranny. Also in all probability the weapon wasn't automatic.

Ok semi if you want but fully automatic weapons are legal in the US . The second amendment was written at a time when flintlock muskets were a the weapon of the day . It may have worked then but I just dont see how it works in modern times with modern weapons and modern problems. When was the last time weapons were raised against tyranny?My personal opinion is that its time for America to move forward and protect its citizens from themselves.by all means own a hand gun or a rifle but a galting gun NO! Lol its just common sense. Would you really feel comfortable if every chav over here was packing a Uzi?... I wouldent. Edited July 13, 2016 by kanny

[Rake aboot 4,936]

 

I take it you know what devils advocate means , so I`ll skip that bit.

 

He placed himself in harms way for no reason at all. He risked leaving his wife a widow so he could have a go at shooting a man with a machine gun. What part of that is clever or wise ?

Americans, particularly Texans often pride themselves on their independence and in all probability considered such an act their civic duty. Do we or you really know anything about the Individual? You've decided he was a gun toting redneck that wanted a kill, personally I think you are a mile off in understanding these people's mindset.

 

 

Nope not at all. Devils advocate remember.

 

I have no issue with him shooting the guy, I just have doubts about his motive and his sensibility for doing it. Why didn`t he shoot him when he pulled a gun out in the store.?

 

Remember , I`m a bloke that prefers to be armed for self defence purposes and thinks that home defence should be a justification for gun ownership in the UK

[Born Hunter 17,780]

 

 

Although I agree people should have the right to defend themselves and there property .but nobody seems to be picking up on the point that this robber had a Ak-47 i presume legally held? And for me this is the problem with American gun law .I can't see any justification for high powered automatic weapons especially if any numpty can get there hands on them ...keep it real.

The second ammendment wasn't written to protect a citizens right to defend themselves or hunt, it was written to protect against tyranny. Also in all probability the weapon wasn't automatic.

Ok semi if you want but fully automatic weapons are legal in the US . The second amendment was written at a time when flintlock muskets were a the weapon of the day . It may have worked then but I just dont see how it works in modern times with modern weapons and modern problems. When was the last time weapons were raised against tyranny?My personal opinion is that its time for America to move forward and protect its citizens from themselves.by all means own a hand gun or a rifle but a galting gun NO! Lol its just common sense. Would you really feel comfortable if every chav over here was packing a Uzi?... I wouldent.

If the founding fathers had had ARs they would have worded the 2A the same. The muzzle loader was the assault rifle of the day. Yes fully automatic weapons are legal though I believe restricted by federal government? My point is that it's just a semi auto rifle, like many other sporting rifles, yet if it's an AR or an AK suddenly folks loose their minds. Had it been an old ruger semi most folks wouldn't have even acknowledged the type of weapon. Today it's the 'assault rifle' they're after, tomorrow it's the pistol and next week it'll be the shotgun, all with the same arguments.

 

I presume your question about tyranny is in the context of the US, because oppressed people have and are fighting tyranny all over the world. I personally think it's naive to think that freedom and democracy is any safer in the modern world than it was in the 18thC. Was it some jap general that said "It'd be suicide to invade the US, there'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

 

Tyranny now takes a softer strategy but ultimately freedom is defended by the blood of patriots, in the US there's many that really believe that and refuse to give up that most basic ability.

[Lenmcharristar 9,820]

Maybe he's had enough of random looney bins starting shoot outs with police or terrorist attacks and just stood up and acted on behalf of decent Americans getting a bad name over bad people. Good luck to him, the only one shot was the criminal. Better him than innocent bystanders

[Born Hunter 17,780]

 

 

I take it you know what devils advocate means , so I`ll skip that bit.

 

He placed himself in harms way for no reason at all. He risked leaving his wife a widow so he could have a go at shooting a man with a machine gun. What part of that is clever or wise ?

 

Americans, particularly Texans often pride themselves on their independence and in all probability considered such an act their civic duty. Do we or you really know anything about the Individual? You've decided he was a gun toting redneck that wanted a kill, personally I think you are a mile off in understanding these people's mindset.

Nope not at all. Devils advocate remember.

 

I have no issue with him shooting the guy, I just have doubts about his motive and his sensibility for doing it. Why didn`t he shoot him when he pulled a gun out in the store.?

 

Remember , I`m a bloke that prefers to be armed for self defence purposes and thinks that home defence should be a justification for gun ownership in the UK

Well then there's really not a lot to say, you haven't made a judgement and neither have I. We can't because we haven't a clue what went off or who the guy was. If this was a UK incident by special forces it'd take fecking years and millions before we figured it out, LOL.

[kanny 20,639]

 

 

 

 

Although I agree people should have the right to defend themselves and there property .but nobody seems to be picking up on the point that this robber had a Ak-47 i presume legally held? And for me this is the problem with American gun law .I can't see any justification for high powered automatic weapons especially if any numpty can get there hands on them ...keep it real.

The second ammendment wasn't written to protect a citizens right to defend themselves or hunt, it was written to protect against tyranny. Also in all probability the weapon wasn't automatic.

Ok semi if you want but fully automatic weapons are legal in the US . The second amendment was written at a time when flintlock muskets were a the weapon of the day . It may have worked then but I just dont see how it works in modern times with modern weapons and modern problems. When was the last time weapons were raised against tyranny?My personal opinion is that its time for America to move forward and protect its citizens from themselves.by all means own a hand gun or a rifle but a galting gun NO! Lol its just common sense. Would you really feel comfortable if every chav over here was packing a Uzi?... I wouldent.

If the founding fathers had had ARs they would have worded the 2A the same. The muzzle loader was the assault rifle of the day. Yes fully automatic weapons are legal though I believe restricted by federal government? My point is that it's just a semi auto rifle, like many other sporting rifles, yet if it's an AR or an AK suddenly folks loose their minds. Had it been an old ruger semi most folks wouldn't have even acknowledged the type of weapon. Today it's the 'assault rifle' they're after, tomorrow it's the pistol and next week it'll be the shotgun, all with the same arguments.

I presume your question about tyranny is in the context of the US, because oppressed people have and are fighting tyranny all over the world. I personally think it's naive to think that freedom and democracy is any safer in the modern world than it was in the 18thC. Was it some jap general that said "It'd be suicide to invade the US, there'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

Tyranny now takes a softer strategy but ultimately freedom is defended by the blood of patriots, in the US there's many that really believe that and refuse to give up that most basic ability.

I understand its complicated and difficult for our culture to fully understand the US culture and i agree with the sentiments of the second amendment but my point is guns in the US arnt being used to protect people from government no more. Citizens are turning those guns on citizens and it makes it difficult for me to justify . I don't want to be a kill joy or see anybody's rights taken away but its Cleary evident that there is a problem.

[Born Hunter 17,780]

I understand its complicated and difficult for our culture to fully understand the US culture and i agree with the sentiments of the second amendment but my point is guns in the US arnt being used to protect people from government no more. Citizens are turning those guns on citizens and it makes it difficult for me to justify . I don't want to be a kill joy or see anybody's rights taken away but its Cleary evident that there is a problem.

I could go on, but I won't. LOL. The right is certainly abused, but that's the nature of rights I guess.

[Silversnake 1,099]

 

I understand its complicated and difficult for our culture to fully understand the US culture and i agree with the sentiments of the second amendment but my point is guns in the US arnt being used to protect people from government no more. Citizens are turning those guns on citizens and it makes it difficult for me to justify . I don't want to be a kill joy or see anybody's rights taken away but its Cleary evident that there is a problem.

I could go on, but I won't. LOL. The right is certainly abused, but that's the nature of rights I guess.

There will never be a perfect answer to this problem as someone will always abuse power given the chance. So I believe give everyone equal chance and live and let live. Atvb.

[mackem 26,835]

I am a member of an american archery forum,theres a thread on there at the moment about concealed weapons and how many people have actually had to pull them on people,quite a number have,several have shot intruders or attackers,one shot someone in the leg instead of killing him and was sued for lots of cash when the guy recovered,lots of stories we dont face over here,interesting topic.

[jukel123 8,292]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160712-robber-with-ak-47-was-shot-by-waffle-house-customer-desoto-police-say.ece

 

'Customers told police that the man had come into the restaurant, armed with an AK-47, and robbed numerous people as well as the business.

One customer, who was legally carrying a concealed handgun, followed the robber into the parking lot because he was afraid for the safety of his wife, who was on her way to the Waffle House.

The customer called out to the robber, who turned and pointed the rifle at him, police said. The customer then shot the robber several times.

The robbery suspect was taken to a hospital, where he is on life support.'

America needs a lot more good news stories like this to keep their legally held weapons,let's hope they're more well publicised in the futu

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by jukel123

[waltjnr 6,851]

not being anti yank ,but does no one think they are a little bit more gung ho regarding guns?surely their friendly fire/blue on blue incidents back this up ?i know we are not allowed to believe anything on the box ,but seeing a thing about some texan millitia/gun nuts ,boasting how frances atrocities wouldnt happen there ,and then preceded to shoot a4 copies of bin bag heavily laden ,sort of people i wouldnt trust with a spud gun!

[Silversnake 1,099]

not being anti yank ,but does no one think they are a little bit more gung ho regarding guns?surely their friendly fire/blue on blue incidents back this up ?i know we are not allowed to believe anything on the box ,but seeing a thing about some texan millitia/gun nuts ,boasting how frances atrocities wouldnt happen there ,and then preceded to shoot a4 copies of bin bag heavily laden ,sort of people i wouldnt trust with a spud gun!

Maybe so but at least they can make their own mistakes instead of whinging that police didn't react. If they choose not to arm themselves when they have the option and they get done over by criminals it is on them. Here in oz if I defended myself against a criminal I realistically could be in more trouble than the criminal would be if they got caught doing me over. I know which option I would prefer.