Customer shoots bank robber in Warren
Source: Local 4 - ClickOnDetroit
WARREN, Mich. -
A man who was robbing a Citizens Bank near 9 Mile and Van Dyke roads on Monday was shot by a customer at the bank.
Police found two guns at the scene. The bank is at the corner of Van Dyke Road and Timken Avenue, which is a few blocks north of 9 Mile Road.
The robber initially fled the bank on foot but was found lying on the ground bleeding. He was taken to the hospital with a gunshot wound.
No other injuries have been reported.
Local 4 has learned the robber walked into the bank and announced a hold-up. He received money from a teller and then pointed the gun at the customer, who shot him. He shot him in both arms and the leg
Read more: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/customer-shoots-bank-robber-in-warren/35398190
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
7962
(11,841 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The customer should be cited for public endangerment.
Meanwhile guns kill 15,000+ teens a year in the U.S...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141212977
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)by getting involved. The customer might have saved a lot of lives if this thief went from bank to bank. 
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
-none
(1,884 posts)having possession of a gun himself. So maybe the bank would not have been robbed in the first place. That works in other countries, it can work here.
branford
(4,462 posts)from 80-100+ million lawful owners, and untold numbers of illegal guns, in the USA, and then how such a plan could possibly overcome the federal and state constitutional impediments and electoral opposition?
For good or ill, the USA is not other countries, and comments like yours are purely the realm of a fevered imagination, rather than part of a realistic legal and policy discussion.
-none
(1,884 posts)What they did worked pretty well for them.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and Australia doesn't have an equivalent to our 2A.
They are more civilized than us because they don't have a 2nd Amendment.
branford
(4,462 posts)with their mandatory buy-back, there were FAR fewer weapons total and per capita than the USA, their overall violent crime and suicide rates, already low and comparable to America, respectively, did not change much at all, to say nothing of the fact that our historical and cultural attitudes were and are far different, particularly towards authority and individual liberty and defense, and the Australian plan would probably be unlawful in our country irrespective of the Second Amendment.
However, I'll be happy to change my original question.
What's your practical plan to "civilize" the USA to the point where gun control is so pervasive and accepted, and compliance so thorough, there's virtually no chance a bank robber would be armed and dangerous?
-none
(1,884 posts)People are getting fed up with being shot, shot at and having their homes shot up and their children killed in them.
The 30% have had their way for too long.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Been hearing that for the couple of decades, yet firearm laws have been getting more liberal while violent crime, including firearm violence, has been falling for the last 20 years.
And what makes you think that only 30% of the population own firearms?
And what makes you think that only 30% of the population support firearm ownership?
branford
(4,462 posts)Not only have we heard such refrains for decades, polls by Gallup, Pew and others clearly show increasing support for gun rights and against restrictions, to say nothing of gun control's lost legal battles and the populations' acceptance of liberalized gun laws, all while crime has steadily decreased.
However, I agree that real change is coming. Soon most of the country will be "shall issue," without need to beg government bureaucrats (or donate to political lackeys) in order to exercise a constitutional right, and despite the dire predictions, our streets will still not resemble Hollywood's Wild West.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)we're more civilized because we're trusted to own firearms.
-none
(1,884 posts)Why is there such a problem with so many gun deaths in this country then? That trust seems misplaced by a few too many and that is causing problem and the so-called good guys are enabling the bad guys.
What are you doing to stop the carnage? Anything?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You are aware that 2/3rds of those deaths are suicides right?
Too drastically reduce that number will take better funding of our mental health services, another measure I support is Universal Background Checks.
And your little slap at law abiding gun owners by calling them so-called good guys?
Doesn't impress me in the least.
-none
(1,884 posts)Doesn't matter what you call them. A gun went bang and someone died.
And I noticed you did not answer my question. What are you doing to stop the carnage? Anything?
I'm betting you don't care as long as you get to keep you guns, correct?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)They'll find another way.
In Japan, where firearm ownership is virtually outlawed, their suicide rate is higher than the US, despite the fact that getting a gun is nearly impossible, they do things like, jump in front of a train/bus/auto, step off of a high rise building, overdose on drugs, etc.
Same in China, where owning even an air rifle is highly restricted.
How much do you want to bet?
I'll bet my Army pension you're wrong.
Care to take that bet?
Response to -none (Reply #208)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rpannier
(24,340 posts)The guy deserves all the positive responses he's getting
Failing to acknowledge what this guy did as a good thing only weakens the position of gun control advocates because you sound like a zealot
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It tends to harsh their vision of an Equestria-style world where there would be no violent
crime if guns didn't exist...
Rod Beauvex
(564 posts)Did you drop some spaghetti there?
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)What is Equestria?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts) friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Thankfully, you are not free to make that determination for others, as there is some evidence
to support resistance:
https://www.google.com/search?q=killed+did+not+resist+robbed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22did+not+resist%22+robbed+killed
7962
(11,841 posts) GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You're funny.
You just can't stand the thought that a law abiding citizen used their legally carried weapon to stop what could have been a deadly situation.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I'm going to side with a customer who had a gun pointed at him.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)probably would have ended with no one injured. In this bank case, lucky robber didn't kill someone when the ignorant cowboy started shooting.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You just can't bring yourself to admit that this was a good DGU, can you?
For all we know, that customer saved a bunch of lives by shooting this waste of O2.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Fact robber didn't shoot at any time, shows he had no intention to. Probably bought his gun off some law-abiding collector - with more guns than he could fondle - with no background check.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I think we both know why you're so pissed that the ARMED robber got shot.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)you one or more close by to walk down the street. Maybe you are not clairvoyant, just irrational.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts) HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)The robber didn't shoot because he wasn't given the chance. Imagine if police weren't allowed to shoot when guns are pointed at them. That world would suck.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)You sound a typical republican. you should stop watching fox news and go outside or go back to red state.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Hell, I thought it was a human thing.
Guess I was wrong according to rockfordfile.
Reter
(2,188 posts)N/T.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...and you forgot the "satire" tag.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #46)
Name removed Message auto-removed
louis-t
(23,297 posts)on the robber? Did he already have gun drawn and robber pointed gun to try to shoot first? Customer got really lucky. In my town, a police woman was putting gas in her car while the station was being robbed. Robbers ran out, police woman drew gun and was shot dead. For us ignorants, what's a DGU?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)several times already, when he pointed it again at the customer, he was shot.
DGU=Defensive Gun Use.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)There's no mention of "already pointed the gun at the customer several times already" (redundant) in the article.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but regardless, even pointing the gun at the customer once is considered a deadly threat.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)cost the democrats thousands of votes in purple states.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)to say nothing of you obvious ignorance concerning self-defense (and public endangerment) laws virtually everywhere in the USA.
Lawful concealed carry gun owner shoots armed bank robber, no other innocents harmed, assailant even survives.
By today's news standards, this is definitely a feel good story.
Also, despite your likely cognitive dissonance and apparent revulsion, defensive uses of guns are common according to the CDC under President Obama,
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)kid approaching on the sidewalk. No real threat other than the fear most gun toters have.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)sarisataka
(18,792 posts)Is wrong? 
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)sarisataka
(18,792 posts)if I put more faith in the CDC report which considered many studies and rejected those coming in with very low numbers. While they did not fully accept the high estimates either, they did conclude "that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"
I believe the CDC will consider data more objectively than
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)I forgive you. 
sarisataka
(18,792 posts) 
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)is lying?
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)which is much more comprehensive and accurate.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)500,000 to 3,000,000 DGUs/year = 1,350 to 8,200 DGUs/day. We would be a terrifyingly violent nation to require that number. And we're not - as statistics bear out.
I cannot accept it. Can you give me the link to that CDC report? Is it the one in the post you responded to?
branford
(4,462 posts)Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
Note that it's hardly a "pro-gun" report, but not all information supports a gun control agenda.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)I see that these are ESTIMATES taken from studies that vary wildly. They don't support a guns-everywhere agenda either. the links I originally posted analyze these studies I believe. A couple snips from The Google searches:
<The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/
< * Defensive gun use is a fact but it is difficult to count accurately.
* The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has estimated that there are between 60,000 and 105,000 DGUs per year. Between the years 1992 and 1994, the NCVS reported there were in total 116,000 DGUs.
* Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated the annual occurrence of DGUs to be around 2.5 million per year.
* The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year.>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence
branford
(4,462 posts)and includes and analyzes studies from researchers from both sides of the gun rights / gun control divide. Bias and methodologies appear to vary wildly depending political ideology, but most importantly, even the low end estimates establish significant defensive firearm use.
Besides exposing the myth that the CDC doesn't engage in any firearm-related research (although it's still properly mostly a matter for the DOJ, usually the Bureau of Justice Statistics or National Institute of Justice, and private academics), the report is useful because it includes so much information and highlights the disparities of the research.
Quite frankly, I never understood the reluctance of some gun control advocates to concede the prevalence of defense gun use. In a nation with over 300 million people, with 80-100+ million lawful gun owners and 300+ million legal guns, with even more illegal gun owners and guns, there will inevitably be a large amount of guns used for self-defense, even if it only involves minor brandishing as a crime deterrent. The issue is really the cost / benefit analysis which is far more complicated and very subjective. However, since guns certainly cannot be "uninvented," and the forcible confiscation of hundreds of millions of guns in the USA is a practical, legal and political impossibility, policies that would primarily disarm the law-abiding, who statistically are not a danger, simply seem illiberal and cruel.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)Hey Max,
We address the CDC "study" in a comment under one of our articles, which means for most purposes we have not addressed it in our writing. Most of what gun-extremists say about the report is false.
For starters, it's not from the CDC, but rather the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. So right of the bat they get the authorship wrong (here is the report itself): http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Second, it is a literature review, not a study, meaning they did no original research but merely cited what others had written (a literature that, whether we like it or not, does include Kleck).
Third, Gary Kleck himself was on the panel, so it is not surprising that he cited himself in the section dealing with defensive gun uses (which means that any refutation of Kleck's studies refutes that portion of the report).
And finally, the full paragraph on DGUs in the report reads like this:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
Hope this helps, and be sure to let us know if you have any further questions,
Devin
branford
(4,462 posts)a committed gun control organization, who obviously did not like some of the data (as gun rights groups also didn't like some of the data). Apparently, their primary objection is that an ideological partisan was on the relevant panel. However, they conspicuously fail to mention the other panelists from across the ideological spectrum concerning the issue. I assume that's why they choose not to address the study in their writings, but were nevertheless forced to acknowledge it a later comment.
As to the origins and nature of the report, I'll post a link to a Daily Kos entry, hardly a right-wing, pro-gun source, for some additional context:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence
Further, as I previously indicated, the report is valuable precisely because it shows the great disparity of the purported facts and figures in the firearms debate. It's a feature, not a bug.
I also correctly quoted the study, and even the lower estimates of defensive gun use (whatever the definition) were still quite substantial.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)so we're going to have to disagree. Even the low estimates suggest an extreme level of violence and crime that doesn't reflect daily life in America.
Perhaps Congress should let the CDC actually study this issue and try to sort these estimates out. Wish in one hand...
branford
(4,462 posts)Such research is usually performed by the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and complied by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and/or FBI. Check-out the various websites. Studies and data are readily available.
I should know, prior to my law practice, I actually worked at the NIJ and dealt with some of the research. There is nothing magical about CDC research. There's also a reason why Congress limited CDC funding about firearms. They used the money for blatant political advocacy, with purported "research" that could never be replicated. I encourage you to personally research the CDC funding matter, rather than rely on my explanations.
Interestingly, the problems cited by your partisan source is that the study wasn't really a study, but only a review of available research. Despite you claims, since there was no original research in the report, there was no true methodology to be flawed. Apparently, the only methodological flaw was that the CDC had the audacity to include some studies that didn't support the conclusions desired by your source, and hence they believe it should just be ignored because it doesn't support their narrative.
You additionally state, "Even the low estimates suggest an extreme level of violence and crime that doesn't reflect daily life in America." That's an awfully broad and conclusory statement. Daily life is quite different across the USA for our millions of citizens, from the safety of rural Vermont to the crime-plagued hell of inner Detroit, and everything in-between.
Simply, for both gun control and gun rights advocates, reliable and replicable data is still worthwhile data even when it doesn't support the "preferred" conclusions.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)It takes apart Kleck's estimates, specifically, speaking of purported "research". It does so convincingly, at least to me. Partisan or not.
Finally, I'm not worried about making "broad and conclusory" statements. I'm not a researcher, a politician, or a lawyer. I'm a private citizen who's BS Detector goes off at a number like "up to 2.5 million per year" (>8,000 DGUs/day).
branford
(4,462 posts)In fact, you were citing your source as completely authoritative well before you even knew the CDC study even existed, despite the fact it's been widely discussed and cited by all sides in the gun debate.
I used the study it in this discussion precisely because it included both research I believed had better methodology, and those I was sure my opponents would cite in opposition. However, as both an attorney and former researcher, given the contentious of the debate, I would no more cite an obvious and committed gun control organization for facts and figures supporting gun control, than I would cite the NRA or GOA for data in support of liberalizing gun rights.
In any event, our discussion has become circular and tangential. The citizen in the OP did indeed lawfully, properly and safely use his firearm in self defense, the defensive use of firearms occurs with some regularity, often without firing a shot, and even if such instances were rare, both as a matter of law and public opinion, it would not change American's right to keep and bear arms.
Lastly, I would note that the CDC is not the only government department during the Obama administration that has cast doubt on gun control policies. My old employer, the National Institute of Justice, DOJ, determined that most current gun control policy suggestions were effectively worthless.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit
romanic
(2,841 posts)Cited? Cited my ass!
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Jesus
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) Response to onehandle (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msongs
(67,456 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)It is amazing that joe six pack can manage not to fire 56 rounds and not to kill a person, isn't it?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
Skittles
(153,209 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Hard to believe when someone is pointing a gun at you that you would not try to drop him ASAP, instead of trying to aim at extremities.
Therefore I pick, he may very well be a good shot, but under a lot of pressure, and trying to dodge at the same time.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)It was just a lucky shot (for the robber, that is).
Nitram
(22,900 posts)...means that he is a poor shot. He would have been aiming for the center of the torso to maximize the possibility of hitting the robber. Pistols are difficult to shoot accurately unless you've had hours and hours of practice.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Pointing a gun at the victim...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Training in defensive handgun use invariably teaches to shoot at the center of mass. Other areas of the body are extremely difficult to hit in an emerging, fluid defensive situation (as opposed to shooting at a completely stationary target without the adrenaline surge of actual danger), even for experts. Shooting for the center of mass has a far better chance of hitting the target and stopping the threat immediately (and if there's not an immediate grave threat to neutralize, you shouldn't be shooting). Moreover, it greatly lowers the chance of missing and endangering bystanders.
This is why cops are trained to shoot for center of mass, not to reliably execute the subject. Not, mind you, that I don't think too many cops have the latter purpose in mind, at least as an outcome they're okay with...
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If this average citizen was able to shoot this alleged robber in the arms and the legs, why can't A well trained police officer accomplish the same task?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)aim, especially if you are shooting at someone who is shooting at you.
On edit: I'm being sort of facetious. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a law enforcement officer who lined up for that first shot and the recoil, along with staying a bit sideways and out of the other fellas line of sight, pulled it all over.
As far as peeing, your urinary function at that point likely shuts down, along with digestion, since the blood supply is needed for fight. So that doesn't happen until after.
OnlinePoker
(5,727 posts)LisaL
(44,974 posts)If he really was aiming for arms and legs and didn't miss, he could have had a lot of training.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Is somebody a threat? If so, aim for the center mass.
Are they not a threat? Don't shoot.
I've never seen training that said, if he is only kind of a threat, aim for the legs. That is just stupid.
eggplant
(3,914 posts)If they don't need to shoot to kill, then they don't need to shoot. Plain and simple.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Filled with other customers and employees. Why what could go wrong? Could have turned into a bloodbath with others killed and wounded. It didn't this time, but it could have.
It's only money. Let them take it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Should the bank patron have taken one for the team?
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)When the wrong choice can get you killed? Why give a felon the benefit of the doubt?
branford
(4,462 posts)You, of course, are certainly free to gamble with your life in such a situation, but demanding that others do so, no less that such risk should be enshrined in law, is the very definition of chutzpah.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)on armed robbers mid robbery is the height of irresponsibility. Had the guy missed he could have gotten himself and others killed.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, per the story, the armed bank robber actually pointed his gun at the citizen. It's hardly a stretch to believe a reasonable person would construe this as a literal life or death situation, and since he lawfully carried the gun, no charges will ever be filed. To most people, that citizen is a hero.
You stated sarcastically that "we know robbers always kill their victims." In response, and more relevantly, could you indicate pertinent data that armed bank robbers never kill their victims? If you have such statistics, I would gladly broaden our discussion.
24601
(3,963 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Especially now that so many citizens are taking responsibility for
their own safety, the safety their family, and are armed!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Maybe the armed robber was going to shoot him? What was the customer supposed to do? Wait until the armed robber took a shot at him? 
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)I suppose though when the robber first pointed the gun, that was enough for self defense to kick in.
If he had not done that, it would not have, and been better to let him leave with the money and deal with it from there.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Have you provided the police this info yet being a witness?
jmowreader
(50,566 posts)
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Was an off duty cop.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)A law abiding citizen isn't going to just decide to rob the place because he has a gun, and a criminal will bring a gun regardless of the law.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
michreject
(4,378 posts)Open carry is no go
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)My state of AZ allows CCW in banks, NV does also, so does UT.
Maybe you should research a subject before commenting and looking like a fool.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(18,656 posts)Bad day to rob a bank. I have to assume he knew the risks when he drew his gun on innocent people, so I find myself short on sympathy.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)but that said, the robber brought this on himself.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)pissed that the other guy in line beat him to it and just shot him. 
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)can't remember the name of the movie, but your post reminded me of that movie.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Shouldn't this really be a story about two law-breakers cancelling themselves out and both winding up in the clink for STARTING A FUCKING GUNFIGHT IN PUBLIC?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)as it is in many other states.
If it were illegal, then why aren't the cops charging him?
ripcord
(5,547 posts)Some posters seem to be more upset with the customer who broke no laws defending himself than they are with the armed bank robbery.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Do it all the time here.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)
marble falls
(57,333 posts)mac2766
(658 posts)It's good that the robbery was stopped. It's also very good (and extremely lucky) that no one was killed by either the criminal or the vigilante.
While I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, I can't support vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is dangerous, and is a certain path to chaos in a community.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)the ARMED robber pointed the gun at the customer, this is a clear case of self defense, not vigilante justice.
mac2766
(658 posts)You support the action taken by what could easily be an untrained gunman in the situation. An action that could easily have been disastrous.
There is no argument that can be made by me or anyone else against a person who defends themselves in a life-threatening situation. What really needs to be considered is not the outcome, but the implication of the action taken by the shooter. If discharging a weapon in a building endangers the lives of innocent people, should the gun have been discharged? My position is no. Should one individual endanger the lives of one or more individuals to protect himself? My position is no. If I am threatened, I will protect myself, but I will not endanger the lives of others in doing so.
And as for the nit... vigilante / not a vigilante. We can agree to disagree. My opinion is that this was an act of vigilante justice carried out by a very reckless individual.
I strongly support the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms should remain a right... but... on the same note, we as American citizens should also have the right to protect ourselves against those who shouldn't posses a gun. There needs to be a balance between insanity and freedom. I live between two very different types of people. On one side of me is a highly trained ex-navy weapons expert. On the other side, a mentally unbalanced red-neck. Both have guns, as is their right. Which would I feel more comfortable being around when they are brandishing their weapons? Take a guess. There needs to be regulation. If you brandish a weapon, it should be a requirement that you have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of actions taken by you with that weapon. I was trained as a young man by the Indiana Hunters Association, by a friends father who happened to be a Deputy Sheriff, and by the US Military. I have yet to brandish a weapon in a public place, and would never carry one in a public place. That act alone could get a person shot.
YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)Watch and see
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Why hasn't it happened yet? There have been plenty of incidents like this, and yet, it hasn't happened.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one."
christx30
(6,241 posts)that they have a good chance of being killed by commiting armed robbery. Maybe it'll convince them to do something else.
No one robs a gun store (or if they do, they aren't going to get away with much). No one tries to hold up a police station. Maybe we can might want to add banks to that list.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)shoot first and not risk some gun toting fool playing cowboy.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)isn't the best way to go about making money.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are concerned about armed people in banks. Banks used to have armed guards, and many still do.
Gunz in people's pants aren't going to stop crime, just produce more Zimmermans, Dunns, Reeves, etc.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So, Hoyt, why hasn't it happened yet?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Apologies to Groucho.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)The money is insured. And that way nobody gets hurt.
Having customers firing off guns in the lobby could result in something horrendous.
Most banks don't even put armed guards in their banks because it led to robberies that were a lot more brutal. Guards got shot, robbers came in armed to the teeth. Customers got brutalized.
It's better to just let them take their money and go. The Feds almost always catch them anyway.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Don't make shit where you are at!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...the "just let them have what they want" approach goes out the window. The statistical probability that they won't pull the trigger becomes a far less convincing argument.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)Into a bank. I think it's a felony. If a teller spotted a weapon she would hit the silent alarm and you would walk out of the bank into a swat team.
Teller'S get guns pointed at them. They are trained on exactly what to do.
Most bNk robbers come in wearing a baseball cap, dark glasses and are carrying a bag. Tellers hit the cameras the minute they see anyone looking suspicious .
They have bait money they give out. After so many minutes it exploads. They are full of dye that won't wash off.
People need to let the bank employees do what they are trained to do.
DonP
(6,185 posts)And concealed means concealed, so how exactly would a teller "spot a weapon"?
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)I just called them. If there is a sign prominently displayed that no weapons are allowed then it is illegal to carry a weapon into that building. And banks here all have No Weapons signs on the doors. So it is illegal to take a gun into a bank here.
It was an interesting conversation as she was a woman in law enforcement who was very "pro gun" and she was talking to me who is a woman who worked in banks for most of my life and who has been through several bank robberies.
Her take on the situation was that the customer probably would not be charged with anything because they may have saved the lives of others in the building.
Mine, as a long time bank employee, was that the tellers are trained in exactly what protocol to follow so that no one gets hurt. As soon as they see a suspicious person come in they hit the cameras. If a robber comes up to them they do exactly as they are instructed. And they also try to mix the bait money in with the other money they are handing out. And the guy (or woman) leaves the premises. And the entire building goes into lockdown until the police and the Feds can get there and take charge of the situation. If a customer were to start shooting in the middle of a bank lobby a whole lot more people could be put in jeopardy.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)offender along as seamlessly as possible. Then the trained law enforcement can work to bring the robbers to justice. In the meantime, the FDIC covers the losses so nobody in the bank is out of luck on the deal. Nobody gets hurt, law enforcement go to work.
You cowboys are rolling the dice and you are just plain fucking scary. Irresponsible and scary. Knock it off, Rambo, let the professionals do their jobs.
branford
(4,462 posts)Are you f@king kidding?
The bank robber pointed his gun at the citizen after the teller gave him the money! The fact that the robber already had a second degree murder conviction only emphasizes how the citizen's choice to defend himself was all the more reasonable.
Based upon the fact we know, the only thing trained law enforcement could have done in this instance without the defensive gun use is draw a nice chalk outline of the citizen's dead body and begin his murder investigation.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)To the best of my knowledge, only Montana specifically prohibits concealed carry in banks. My state, Oregon, definitely does not.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to play cowboy and shoot someone.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)the police woman I just talked to said that most of the people here in KC that have gun permits are very well trained. Better than some police officers. But they have to go through a lot of training to get a permit.
That made me feel a little better. I still don't want to walk into the grocery store and see people carrying guns around.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Being trained to shoot, and what to say, is not what they need to be trained in. Leaving their guns at home is the message they need to understand.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)I think most stores here do not allow weapons. There is a big sign on all the libraries where I go.
branford
(4,462 posts)That's precisely the point of concealed carry.
You've probably been around innumerable people lawfully carrying firearms, and just never knew about, particularly if you live in Kansas or Missouri, as happens many millions of times a day across the country.
The fear about Hollywood shoot-outs and innocent blood on the streets due to liberalized carry of firearms is largely limited to the fevered imaginations and activism of hardcore gun control advocates. Stoking irrational fear is hardly only the province of groups like the NRA.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I routinely carry mine in my bank when doing business.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)It should be a quick in and out. The fact that the customer didn't pull his own weapon before when the robber was focused on the tellers indicates that this wasn't some cowboy at all - he wasn't going to push up the danger level, but then acted when the man appeared perhaps not simply to be leaving.
sarisataka
(18,792 posts)more details:
As the gunman waited for bank workers to load a bag with cash, he turned and pointed his gun at the autoworker several times, witnesses told investigators.
Once he had the money and went to leave, he pointed the gun one more time, and that’s when the autoworker drew his weapon and fired three times, hitting the suspect each time.
aftermath:
Mayor Fouts said while he would rather his city have no crime at all, he was happy to hear no one else was hurt in the incident. He said the initial evidence indicates the autoworker was acting in self defense.
“I don’t encourage citizens to use guns, but in this case, the robber was pointing his gun at the customer’s face and he responded,” Fouts said. “It appears he was acting within his Second Amendment rights.”
http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20150921/updated-bank-robber-shot-by-customer-in-warren
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I'm convinced. Everyone should be armed to the teeth 24/7!
Anyone who thinks this helps the gun fetishist's argument doesn't get that no news is good news when it comes to guns.
Tick tock, gun nuts. The tipping point approacheth.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)If a criminal points a gun at someone, they deserve what they get.
Uh huh, you just keep believing that, meanwhile, more states are loosening their firearm laws without the, (gasp) rivers of blood in the streets.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)So if he was pointing a gun at someone, I presume he meant business.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)thank you for that info LisaL.
That puts a whole different perspective on this story.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Unless someone has a peculiar attraction to this kind of punkaroo, he ain't the kind you want to cozy up to on a family outting.
sarisataka
(18,792 posts)I am not arguing either for, nor against. I do have a position I believe is correct but here I am simply presenting the situation and facts as reported to stimulate discussion.
romanic
(2,841 posts)The customer is a hero! Those of you saying "Well he should have just let the robber take the money and run!" clearly have no guts to do what this man had done for that entire bank. Who knows, that robber could have been on a robbing spree. he could have been en route to escape another scene of the crime and needed getaway money, he could have a rap sheet which includes rape, murder and god knows what else. All of that has now been stopped and the thief is behind bars with a reminder not to fuck with the ordinary, responsible, gun-carrying citizen.
Again kudos to the customer for saving everyone in that bank and the city of Warren. I have no empathy for the robber, thieves can eat shit and rot.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Besides, it is my experience that the majority of gun toters are callous, right wing racists, and many are militia types.
romanic
(2,841 posts)The "gun-toters" are know are hard-working people living in less than ideal neighborhoods protecting their families and homes from no-good lowlives and thieves. So our experiences are extremely different.
Regardless I'll say it again, it takes guts to protect yourself and protect others. Fuck the bank robber, he got what he deserved.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)some gun nut with a bunch of guns and an irrational fear. I think most gun fanciers carry for reasons beyond living in "less than ideal." Even then, I question the need to walk around with a gun.
romanic
(2,841 posts)I know a relative whose licensed and he only carries when he's at work (an auto shop in one of the toughest hoods in Detroit), otherwise he keeps his gun locked and safe at home when he's out doing errands or other things. Some people are more paranoid than others I'm afraid.
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)I sound like someone who grew up in a rough area where neighbors had to carry to protect themselves from thieves and gangbangers roaming the streets.
But if that's what you think you're entitled to your wrong opinion.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)followed by a quick riposte with a bicycle tire.
All the time dodging his bullets and then one handed disarmed him and dismantled the weapon.
SUCH A HERO!!!!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think the situation would have been best handled without endangering people. I get you wish you'd been there to squeeze off a shot center mass.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)BTW, are you aware that this POS already had a conviction for 2nd degree Murder?
So it's entirely conceivable that the ARMED robber was going to shoot the customer, but you don't care, because, GUNS!!!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)People like you tend to have alligator mouths and hummingbird asses.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)due to felony convictions, right Hoyt?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to give up your guns.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I totally believe you. After all, you've been sooooo truthful.
branford
(4,462 posts)despite that fact I'm legally able to own firearms, and due to my profession (attorney) and ample law enforcement and political contacts, would have no trouble procuring the necessary permits. I live and work in safe neighborhoods in buildings like fortresses and have ample security and law enforcement virtually on every corner.
I consider myself very fortunate. I nevertheless would not even consider denying the right to keep and bear arms to other law-abiding Americans whose personal circumstances or situation may be different from my own.
I need not exercise a right to cherish and protect it. It's very much like abortion. As a man, I will never get an abortion. I nevertheless believe it should still be legal, safe and available, and would never judge a woman who exercised her right to get an abortion.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Approximately 1 in 3 American adults admit to lawfully owning a firearm in the USA based on data from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center, hardly bastions of pro-gun rights propaganda, and given the contentious nature of such a question, the ownership rate may well be higher.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/64860/20150630/study-shows-1-in-every-3-americans-owns-a-firearm.htm
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/09/injuryprev-2015-041586
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
If you really believe that all those many tens of millions people are redneck "militia types and yahoos getting gunz," your arrogance, ignorance and bigotry is truly astounding. Lawful gun owners represent every demographic of society, including a great many liberal Democrats, particularly in important purple states.
The condescension and disdain of people like you really helps explain why elected Democrats have been decimated in the South and much of the Midewest, and Republicans control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control a clear majority of statehouses and goverorships. I thought our Party might have learned it lessons after Clinton's loss of Congress after the Assault Weapons Ban and Gore's presidential loss in his home state of Tennessee, to say nothing of our recent losses in every national election since 2008. I was obviously, and sadly, mistaken.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gun fanciers. Come to think of it, Randy Weaver lawfully owned firearms. He's a favorite among the Gungeoneers.
branford
(4,462 posts)(although Zimmerman was acquitted). I've never claimed they never engaged in criminal conduct, as such a contention would be ludicrous. However, no matter the few or notable anecdotes, the actual statistical rate of lawful gun owners involved in criminality, firearm or otherwise, is tiny.
Moreover, despite your cognitive dissonance and failure to even attempt to dispute the data I provided, the over 80 million gun owners in the USA do indeed represent all demographics, including a great many Democrats.
All your insults and disdain accomplish is demonstrate you ignorance, and far, far worse, help elect Republicans to Congress endangering the entire Democratic agenda, all while tilting at the elusive national gun control legislation windmills.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In my experience, anyone who would vote for greedy, racist, warmongering Republicans to protect their guns, is not likely a Democrat.
sarisataka
(18,792 posts)When Bloomberg and his gun control associates attacked incumbent Democrats and helped flip AR and AK seats in the Senate to Republicans?
Can you point out any Republicans they opposed on gun control and elected Democrats to Congress?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sarisataka
(18,792 posts)The hero, savior and sugar daddy of Gun Control.
Some like to think he is a born-blue friend to Democrats. If you pay attention it does not matter if it is guns, sodypop or walking while brown; Bloomberg is a control lover. He is a friend to no one except maybe fellow 1%ers.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The official platform of the Democratic party is that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Virginia Democratic Party platform similarly recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. So I'm comfortable that my party isn't going to attempt to ban firearms. Only the fringe Democrats want to ban firearms, and there is zero chance of that happening in the current political climate. Zero chance.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"Terrorism charge facing bicyclist found with body armor, guns"
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/09/bicycle_terrorist_threats_guns.html
He might need an attorney friendly to gun fanciers.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)There are lots of example of people being murdered, raped, etc. that might not have happened if they had a means to protect themselves. Even closer to home, a young man was stabbed and beaten to death on the subway here in D.C. a few months ago in full view of a number of others who were too scared to assist. Perhaps if someone had been armed the victim would still be alive. I would hope that if one of my family members was attacked in a similar manner that someone would have the means to stop the attack. Of course, you would probably argue that the person that stepped in to save someone's life acted recklessly and put others at risk.
Of course he would, he's done it before.
If the potential existed that even one innocent person could be injured during the exchange, then the auto-worker was in the wrong. In my opinion.
Protect yourself yes... always, but please don't kill an innocent person in the process. This time the auto-worker didn't kill one of the employees, or even a person walking on the street outside of the bank, but what if?
The issue should be the implication, and not the outcome. The discussion shouldn't be "is this man a hero", but "what would the parents of a young child be saying today if their child was killed during that exchange, and how would the auto-worker be represented".
branford
(4,462 posts)many tens of millions more with guns legally at home, and numerous instances of defensive gun use according to the CDC under President Obama,
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
Nevertheless, and despite the claims of some gun controllers that liberalized gun laws will result in blood on the streets and Hollywood Wild West shoot-outs across the country, it is a exceptionally rare story indeed where a lawful defensive use of a firearms resulted in the death or injury of an innocent. In fact, both data and anecdote appear to indicate that police are far more likely to injure bystanders and innocents than lawful civilian firearm owners.
Your concerns about protecting innocent life certainly appears sincere, but there doesn't seem to actually be a problem of innocents endangered by lawful defensive use of firearms. More concerning, any attempts at trying to eliminate all ancillary risks in a life or death self-defense situation, no less limit such defensive use of firearms as a matter of law, would be entirely impractical and potentially swallow the entire right to self-defense.
mac2766
(658 posts)Would you discharge a weapon in an area where the potential to injure or kill an innocent person exists?
branford
(4,462 posts)Situations are very rarely free of all risk.
In this instance, according to the relevant articles, the citizen was the only person in the bank other than the armed robber and tellers, and rather than make an immediate egress, the robber pointed his gun directly at the citizen. If it was me, I imagine I would certainly feel I was in a true life or death situation, and if armed, would likely attempt to defend myself with the weapon.
I'm not quite sure what you're generally suggesting with your comments. If you're simply stating that you personally would never use a firearm to defend yourself because of the possibility, no matter how remote, of injuring an innocent, that certainly would be your choice. No one, not even the NRA, is suggesting that everyone must own and carry a gun, no less use it if threatened.
However, if you're suggesting that people be prevented as a matter of law from employing a firearm in self-defense because of any potential risk, you would be eviscerating both the right to keep and bear arms and general, historic notions of self-defense, particular against assailants that are themselves armed or by people who are smaller, weaker or outnumbered by criminal adversaries.
mac2766
(658 posts)That this incident ended with no innocent person getting injured or killed...
Let's table that for a bit.
In an absolutely hypothetical situation... there are other people in the bank along with the shooter, and the gun is discharged. The un-trained auto-worker pumps 3 bullets out of the gun. He imagined that he would hit the bad guy 3 times in the chest, but instead, he hits him once in the shoulder, once in the leg, and missed completely with the 3rd round. The 3rd round goes through the window of the bank and strikes a person walking beside the bank in the head and kills them instantly.
That's okay?
branford
(4,462 posts)It's never "okay" when an innocent dies, and even the death of an armed an dangerous assailant is tragic. However, as I indicated before, your ultimate goal still remains elusive.
If you're arguing that you personally would be reticent to ever fire a gun in self-defense or even just believe that as prerequisite to a concealed carry license there should be minimal safety and competency training, we certainly have no quarrel. You must asses your own risks and I do not oppose reasonable means to improve actual firearm safety.
I'm more concerned that as a matter of law you want to effectively remove a persons right to defend themselves, at least with a firearm, due to any potential risk to third-parties. That I would vehemently oppose this, and it would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
In you hypothetical, if the shooter otherwise legally owned and carried the gun, and did not otherwise violate any established principles of self-defense (e.g., fired at an obviously escaping suspect, etc.), the shooting would appear to be lawful and reasonable, and the death of the innocent entirely the responsibility of the bank robber. In fact, as an attorney, I can assure you that the robber would almost certainly face a felony murder charge.
The basic tenets of criminal and civil law are also not suspended against third-parties in the event of defensive firearm use. If the shooter was somehow criminally or civilly negligent, he (or she) could still face penalties (e.g., firing into a large crowd while intoxicated after the assailant is down even if otherwise lawfully defending themselves, etc.).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)guess who gets charged with that death?
The armed robber would as the innocent citizen was killed in the commission of a crime.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and it won't be with a can of beans or a bicycle tire, it will be with my legally carried firearm.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is "blasting away"? And yeah, if a bank robber points their gun at you and you are armed then yes, shoot the bank robber. Do you think that people should simply roll over and get robbed, or raped, or shot?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Instead of what if, lets just examine what happened. Everything worked out ok, and I have no issue with the customers actions.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)And that's just in Freedonia.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...you know, that agency which is banned from doing gun research.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)So happy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)I emailed the Armed With Reason blog, here is what they responded:
Hey Max,
We address the CDC "study" in a comment under one of our articles, which means for most purposes we have not addressed it in our writing. Most of what gun-extremists say about the report is false.
For starters, it's not from the CDC, but rather the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. So right of the bat they get the authorship wrong (here is the report itself): http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Second, it is a literature review, not a study, meaning they did no original research but merely cited what others had written (a literature that, whether we like it or not, does include Kleck).
Third, Gary Kleck himself was on the panel, so it is not surprising that he cited himself in the section dealing with defensive gun uses (which means that any refutation of Kleck's studies refutes that portion of the report).
And finally, the full paragraph on DGUs in the report reads like this:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
Hope this helps, and be sure to let us know if you have any further questions,
Devin
Further link to debunking of the 100,000 to 2.5 million DGU statistic. Please read with an open mind:
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
relevant paragraph:
<Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.
Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Kleck’s surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police. This would indicate 3,200 defensive uses on an annual basis, still well short of what surveys suggest. Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.>
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)that in the lead-in to the "project's" statement.
I have trouble with a group which pulls out "gun-extremist." To me, they are politicized gun-controllers whose data gathering and such are as subject to scrutiny as any other gun-control group.
I don't think the "project" opinions comport with those of "armedwith...", either.
For too long I have seen the same charges and counter-charges packaged in the same rhetoric, only with a new addressee on the label. I will have an open mind when I see a group which steps back from a defacto prohibitionist dynamic. I don't see this with " armed with..."
Thanks for the response.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)I don't let rhetoric stand in the way of considering the new information. Maybe that's because I'm a Gun-cynic (I think it's too late to stop the madness in my lifetime), not a Gun-controller.
You consider Armedwithreason "defacto prohibitionist"? I don't see that in their literature.
branford
(4,462 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Nobody needed to get shot.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)By the way the bank robber has a second degree murder conviction on his record.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the robber was leaving, but then turned around and pointed his gun at the customer, who then perceived a deadly threat and drew his concealed weapon, fired 3 shots at the robber, hitting him 3 times, the robber then ran out and the police found him lying on the ground.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I do not trust violent, armed criminals and what they may do.
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)sarisataka
(18,792 posts)Would you care to elaborate?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Sometimes they kill people too.
Worked in banking systems a long time - I know some harrowing stories. To be fair, that's because I was traveling to a lot of banks.
The guy didn't move before - he had the perfect right to shoot when he was threatened. I would not assume that the robber was going to peacefully walk out, because he would not have been pointing the gun at the customer. They grab and run. There are silent alarms, which they know, so time is of the essence if you want to be a successful bank robber.
It's trouble if robbers don't get cash from the teller and don't skedaddle. Maybe the robber didn't get much. Tellers have limited cash.
My reaction, reading the story, is that the robber wasn't sure what to do, and either meant to take the customer as a hostage or rob the customer. Maybe he heard a siren?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and it ain't the story. (hint hint).
ileus
(15,396 posts)
Kennah
(14,325 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,925 posts)I've never heard that!
Kennah
(14,325 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)This is just one of the hundreds of thousands of DGUs that occur in the U.S. on an annual basis.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)see http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/ and my posts and links above.
here's a relevant paragraph:
Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.
that's 1600 VERIFIED DGU's last year, not even close to 100's of 1,000's. not all are reported, I will concede.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I used the CDC's reasonable estimate not works of fiction by the anti gun rights lobby.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)the "Study" that is linked is not BY the CDC, and its a survey of available research.
I don't think you read the article.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would suggest you personally read the study. The CDC sponsorship is explained, and typical of government research.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)trying to find the cited paragraph. then I saw Gary Kleck's name, and remembered my "purported source for everything".
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)it is a compilation of DGU estimates from other surveys.
those sources (NCVS, Gary Kleck et al) are what my link disputes. only 1600 DGUs were CONFIRMED in 2014 by the Gun Violence Archive.
<Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.
Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Kleck’s surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police. This would indicate 3,200 defensive uses on an annual basis, still well short of what surveys suggest. Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.>
Dismiss it as partisan - par for the course on DU.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)That's all you need to say. I researched that 1600 count months ago, and I think they only used headline worthy cases that resulted in the "bad guy" being shot. 99% of DGUs don't involve anyone pulling the trigger.
Even Hemenway acknowledges there are tens of thousands of DGUs, and he is a rabid gun control advocate who refers to gun owners as "wusses".
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)NCVS? Kleck? Is there anything that would persuade you that 8,000 DGUs per day in a country with a 20 year low in crime and only 11K firearm homicides is suspect?
I'll say it again: an estimate of 2.5 million DGUs per year is absurd, and the CDC did not endorse Kleck's numbers by funding the survey.
Link me to Hemenway acknowledging the NCVS numbers are accurate, please.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Then read the second paragraph here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Thanks
christx30
(6,241 posts)so angry about this one. This robbery turned out as well as could be expected. No one innocent was shot. No one died. The bad guy is going to fully recover enough to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Is it just that someone 'could have' died in this? Well, they didn't. There was no gun battle. Bad guy points gun at good guy. Good guy fires 3 time into bad guy. Bad guy runs away and is caught later.
Criminal activity is a high risk occupation. You don't want to risk death, find a new line of work.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)But I will not let Gun Absolutists use it as a platform for their Sophistry.
christx30
(6,241 posts)psychos when there's a mass shooting.
I think every incident needs to be taken as it is, and every shooter evaluated on his or her own terms, and not have everyone lumped together.
maxsolomon
(33,419 posts)which is what 2nd am. absolutists want.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Yet, if one were to peruse youtube and other sites, many SD's are recorded by security cameras in various stores and even some homes. And these are just the recordings, and don't include reported incidents. Some of the recordings are not pleasant, but one can get a sense of how dangerous a HyperPunk© is when he/she robs and attacks with a deadly weapon; some of the thugs seem to relish the confrontation. Before they go down.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This proves that every one of the 100 million or so guns in the US are absolutely necessary to prevent crimes like this.
No matter that 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year. This incident balances out those 30,000 deaths.
branford
(4,462 posts)result of lawful gun owners? Hint - the rate is VERY low. Note also that out suicide rate is comparable to areas with strict gun control like much of Europe, and much lower than gun control havens like Japan and South Korea.
You also are quite dismissive of the innumerable defensive uses of firearms by lawful gun owners. Are the lives they saved any more or less valuable than victims of firearm violence?
Unless you can "uninvent" firearms or have a remotely practical plan to remove over 300 million legal guns in our country (btw, it's 80-100+ million gun owners, and 300 million legal guns, plus untold numbers of illegal firearms and owners), to say nothing of the legal and electoral impediments to such a plan, a gun is still the best and most effective tool for self-defense for most people, particularly against an armed or multiple assailants, or if you're small, weak, old, disabled, etc.
Lastly, you shouldn't be so surprised about a story concerning defensive gun use. They're quite common, and usually only a small local interest story. Try searching on Google. However, for a start, Reddit has an entire sub-forum devoted to the topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)How many of your old, small, weak, disabled victims are assaulted by multiple armed assailants, and of that group, how many successfully defend themselves from attack?
I also read many stories every week about police personnel being killed by firearms. Sometimes their own firearms. There is one at DU today, in fact.
There is no need to "uninvent" firearms, just a need for regulation.
branford
(4,462 posts)but the causes and implications are far different than crime or accidents.
For instance, it demonstrates that the rates of violence in the USA are something endemic to America other than guns. If that wasn't the case, our suicide rate would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher, yet it's not.
Your comment is also quite puzzling.
I'm surprised how readily you're willing to sacrifice "the old, small, weak, disabled victims are assaulted by multiple armed assailants" in you quest for gun control. I would be shocked by such a social Darwinist position on a liberal, Democratic forum if the issue being discussed wasn't guns. Let me rephrase your question, how many of these people need to lawfully defend themselves with a firearm before you would consider it relevant?
The issue about police is even more odd. I read thread after thread on DU correcting the purported misconception that law enforcement is even dangerous, no less routinely deadly. I'm also routinely advised that civilian ownership of guns is unnecessary because we have trained, and generally armed, law enforcement. Nevertheless, when trying to justify gun control, police seem to be totally unable to ever retain their weapons and the streets are flowing with red from the boys in blue. The hypocrisy is astounding and the concern disingenuous. An occasional anecdote, no matter how tragic and terrible concerning the murder of a police offer, also does not constitute statistically significant date.
Lastly, define the simple "regulation" of firearms you would suggest if you weren't constrained by federal and state constitutional law and an ever increasingly opposed electorate? Kindly dispense with the euphemisms like "common sense" and "reasonable," and discuss actual, specific policies. Also describe how such regulation is really only limited, and not just a nice word for a near or total civilian firearm ban?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Many supporters (of unrestricted firearms possession and use) love to talk about the hypothetical old, small, weak, disabled person who is assaulted by a gang of gun carrying criminals. The aforementioned OSWD person is of course always successful in defending himself/herself against the criminals. A nice story, but hardly relevant. It is a myth, and the myth is necessary to support the fiction that only a heavily armed citizenry is safe from the predations of criminals and jack booted government thugs.
If gun possession confers some sort of safety for the possessor, why are these armed police able to be killed? Again, we have a breakdown where NRA myth confronts reality.
The reality is that sales of firearms is very profitable. THAT is the reason for all the NRA propaganda. THAT is the reason for the NRA buying politicians. The NRA is a lobbying group for the arms industry disguised as a citizens' group.
branford
(4,462 posts)No one, including the dreaded boogeyman NRA, is arguing that a firearm will always protect you from harm, no matter who you are and regardless of situation. The NRA (which only represents about 5 out of 80-100+ gun owners) similarly does not support "unrestricted firearms possession and use," including backing the limitation of possession against violent felons, the mentally ill, etc., and they were instrumental in passing the NICS system.
A firearm provides a choice and opportunity, that MAY protect you or other innocents, and that you hopefully can employ under dangerous and appropriate circumstances. Possession of a gun is hardly infallible; nothing is.
The fact that police are occasionally, and tragically, killed by armed assailants, whether with their own firearm or another, is not particularly pertinent. First, because it is such a relatively rare occurrence, and second, you refuse to compare it to the number of times police use their firearms to protect their lives of themselves and others, often without firing a shot (a subject discussed FAR more often on DU than your focus). In fact, successful law enforcement use of firearms for their and the public's safety is actually an argument in favor of civil gun ownership.
Let's look at the obvious and pertinent example from the OP. An armed bank robber (and convicted murderer) aimed a gun at a patron after he received the money from the teller and instead of making a expeditious exist. There were no other patrons in the bank at the time. By the standards of even the most restrictive self-defense jurisdictions, as the citizen lawfully owned and carried the gun, this was legally justifiable self-defense. What other mean or tools would you suggest that the citizen could have employed to save his life with any practical chance of success, other than hoping and praying the robber might not take his life? Would your recommendation change if the citizen was not a young, strong, and athletic man, or if there were more than one bank robber, and highly common occurrence?
You then switch from denying the obvious defensive utility and use of firearms to blaming the NRA because Americans, and their elected representative, largely will not adopt your gun controlposition. Blaming someone else, no less a group that represents a very small fraction of American gun owners, for gun control's innumerable failures, is sad and laughable. In a free country, groups of all position have the right to lobby for their position, and it does not matter if they're the NRA, WWF or Planned Parenthood. You need to win a battle of ideas, the law will not silence your opponents or erase our country's history and culture.
The suggestion that the NRA's purported wealth explains their success is also ludicrous. Most of the figures are freely available, and the NRA has and spends far less money than most believe. Their power lies in great (and enviable) grassroots organization and communication, and more importantly, always getting out the vote of their members and many others.
Moreover, gun control has their own pet billionaires, significant numbers of politicians, media personalities, and celebrities dedicated to their cause, numerous gun "safety" organizations, and have no compunction of attempting moral blackmail to get their way, including waiving pictures of dead children in support if laws that would unquestionably not have made any difference in Sandy Hook (e.g., universal background check legislation was entirely opportunistic as Lanza's mother easily passed all required background checks, and he only procured the firearms by killing his mother and stealing the guns). For instance, in the recent Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg and his allies outspent the recall proponents by 6 to 1, and still lost disastrously.
It's time to accept the fact the gun control advocacy is very well funded, has more than ample media and other access and opportunity, and is highly organized and motivated, yet not only cannot change the minds of many Americans, but polls from Gallup, Pew and other indicate support for gun rights and against restriction is steadily increasing (all while crime has been decreasing for decades).
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Money is the key. Money persuades the 535 people that would be necessary for sensible gun control and regulation.
As to necessity, why is it that only in the US is it so necessary that every citizen be armed?
Something in the DNA?
Something in the water?
Or something else? Perhaps the fact that the US spends more on war than all other countries combined?
Perhaps the fact, so far avoided by you, that selling weapons is a very profitable business?
Perhaps the fact, again avoided by you, that fear motivates?
How wonderful that the NRA supports to some small degree the restriction on possessing handguns by the violent felons and the mentally ill. Except of course the huge loopholes governing gun sales at open sell gun affairs that allows anyone, violent felon, mentally ill or not, to buy whatever they want free from all scrutiny.
Plus these "isolated incidents", as gun enthusiasts like to refer to them, wherein a mentally ill person or violent felon just happens to have a gun are happening so frequently that the NRA talking point/fiction of keeping guns out of the wrong hands is exposed as the obvious lie that it is. Exposed except for those who want or need to believe it.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)He had better be prepared for it. Someone from the robber's family will sue.
Even if you are innocent of criminal charges, a civil case can and probably will be filed.
It's something to think about before you ever pull that gun out and use it.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or save the life of someone else, you should worry about a potential civil lawsuit by the criminal you shoot? That's simply silly.
christx30
(6,241 posts)before they allow a lawsuit to go through. One required the inmate put up $10,000 as a contingency in case he lost the suit. Case was guy robs store of $800 with a knife. Employees shoot the robber, then chased him down and kick his ass until cops arrive. Robber was sentenced to 8 years. Robber sued the store, citing excessive force. Case was dismissed.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Some states will not allow a civil lawsuit if the shooting is ruled justifiable.
Not sure if this is the case in Michigan.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)and are found not guilty, innocent, or are no billed by the Grand Jury you can not be sued in civil court.
This was done by simp0ly raising the proof needed to the same level of a criminal trial.
branford
(4,462 posts)intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the deceased's estate. As a litigation attorney, that would surely be my strategy, as it would inevitably wipe any gains by the defendant, and therefore ensure his contingency attorney would receive nothing, and hence not take the case, no less to trial. Despite very rare and unusual story, those injured or killed by lawful self-defense are also not generally very warmly received by the vast majority of juries, who almost always refuse to award any damages to dangerous criminals and their representatives and families.
Further, civil suits are often impermissible since many states provide civil immunity in the event of lawful self-defense. It's the reason why Trayvon Martin's family couldn't sue Zimmerman despite the fact that the circumstances of the self-defense in that instance were FAR less clear than those of the OP.
