Score one for the good guys - Elderly Man Shoots Robbers at Internet Cafe in Florida

[zz000ter]

I wish I was able to "carry"
- so that I can protect myself and others
like this brave old guy did!

While the young guys put their hands up
this guy popped a few caps in their a$$e$ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175170/Harrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFW3bwXIcWc


Samuel Williams, age 71, was on a computer at an internet cafe in Ocala, Florida when he saw two suspects rush in, one with a gun and the other swinging a baseball bat, attempting to rob the place. He quickly pulled out his gun and began shooting at the robbery suspects. Both men have been taken to the hospital for gun shot wounds and are charged with armed robbery.

Williams, who holds a concealed carry permit for the firearm, was cleared by the local prosecutors office of facing any charges. The video to the left shows the incident as it was captured by the establishment's surveillance camera.

[4flava]

LMAO! LOVE IT!!!! :lol:

[NEMESIS_2008]

HELLLLLL Yeah!!!!!!

[Jimboski]

That man doing work!

[kingofwale]

probably a ex marine, the guy shot without flinching .

also, the gun he's holding seems pretty small and might not be as lethal.

Good for him.

[LaserEnvy]

How do these types of guys run so fast? He went from a standing position to 30km/h on foot within a split second. How? I would like to know.

[Jimboski]

probably a ex marine, the guy shot without flinching .

also, the gun he's holding seems pretty small and might not be as lethal.

Good for him.

Well he does have a permit to carry a gun so I'm pretty sure he had the necessary training to be able to handle all this when the time comes!

[appleb]

How do these types of guys run so fast? He went from a standing position to 30km/h on foot within a split second. How? I would like to know.

Air Jordan sneakers.

[Jimboski]

How do these types of guys run so fast? He went from a standing position to 30km/h on foot within a split second. How? I would like to know.

You know why :)!

[wilsonlam97]

This is a wonderful story. Finally some good in news today.

[tritium4ever]

How do these types of guys run so fast? He went from a standing position to 30km/h on foot within a split second. How? I would like to know.

Bullets flying at you tend to have that effect. ;)

[appleb]

I just finished reading the article and one of the robbers is a former employee that was recently fired from the cafe.

I'm guessing it's not a smart idea to rob a place where employees may recognize you!

[LaserEnvy]

You know why :)!

Why? I do not know. Please state the reason very clearly.

[JAC]

probably a ex marine, the guy shot without flinching

Pfft. Guy can't shoot for crap.

Dawkins had a superficial wound in his left arm, but Henderson was shot in two places: his left buttock and his right hip.

[divx]

distance shouldn't been that far away and he still can't hit the target properly.

[kingofwale]

Pfft. Guy can't shoot for crap.

Dawkins had a superficial wound in his left arm, but Henderson was shot in two places: his left buttock and his right hip.
keep that in mind that he might not really be shooting to kill.

at 71, I'd be glad to hold a fork, much like pulling a trigger. :)

Not everyone as strong as DOG. ;)

[DrXenon]

JAC, divx: my advice is to go to a range, rent a holster and bring a friend to scream in your ear to simulate stress while you attempt to draw and fire on a moving target 20 yards away. If you do this, you will probably not make any more remarks like those.

[kingofwale]

JAC, divx: my advice is to go to a range, rent a holster and bring a friend to scream in your ear to simulate stress while you attempt to draw and fire on a moving target 20 yards away. If you do this, you will probably not make any more remarks like those.

not to mention the shock and also having a gun pointing at you back.

[Xiaohaibao]

Good for him. Too bad if he did that in Canada he'd go to jail. The US laws makes a lot more sense than ours when it comes to personal defense. This guy possibly saved someone's life (who knows what those robbers would of did).

[zonetbh]

Good for him. Too bad if he did that in Canada he'd go to jail. The US laws makes a lot more sense than ours when it comes to personal defense. This guy possibly saved someone's life (who knows what those robbers would of did).

Big +1

[divx]

JAC, divx: my advice is to go to a range, rent a holster and bring a friend to scream in your ear to simulate stress while you attempt to draw and fire on a moving target 20 yards away. If you do this, you will probably not make any more remarks like those.

then get a better gun, a semi glock or fully auto uzi outta do it, just aim in the general direction and spray.

[kingofwale]

then get a better gun, a semi glock or fully auto uzi outta do it, just aim in the general direction and spray.

yep. all the cool grandpas are carrying them. ;)

http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/510/510/632/asi-uzi-fully-automatic-blank-prop-machine-gun-65cc.jpg

the entire purpose of having a gun (well, for the right reason) is to deter others from harming yourself and self defense. I think his little gun served the purpose perfectly!

[DrXenon]

then get a better gun, a semi glock or fully auto uzi outta do it, just aim in the general direction and spray.

Fully automatic weapons are only good if you want to miss lots. You use them for suppressive fire, to keep the other guy from shooting while your friends are moving, and never when there are things in the background you don't want to hit. Most of the ERT guys will not even use the 3-round-burst setting on their MP5s.

[ishfish]

When I watched the video I wondered if he could be charged if he shot the perp when the perp was trying to get away (the shot in the butt).

[kingofwale]

When I watched the video I wondered if he could be charged if he shot the perp when the perp was trying to get away (the shot in the butt).

so many cases where the perps got away, and came back for revenge.. (in fact, seems to be the case in Scarborough shooting). I'd waste all my bullets as well.

[transitguy1]

score one for the good guys? Where? in the USA

Keep dreaming of that ever happening in Canada. Unless you're an Ameircan in America.

Something in another country, and you feel good about it. LOL

[DrXenon]

I don't think they guy was a Marine or had any military training judging by the way he shot. Just a fine upstanding concealed carry citizen that I wish were in every city in Canada.

Once the guy has threatened you with his gun, you don't know if he is going to turn around and shoot at you, so you can shoot him, being in fear for your life and those of your fellow patrons. In Canada, he would be going to jail for 3 years for possessing a firearm in a place not authorized by an Authorization to Transport, and likely attempt murder II because the perp was fleeing. Ask yourself if those are the kinds of laws you want, and try not to vote for someone like Iggy or McGuinty next time.

[transitguy1]

I don't think they guy was a Marine or had any military training judging by the way he shot. Just a fine upstanding concealed carry citizen that I wish were in every city in Canada.

Once the guy has threatened you with his gun, you don't know if he is going to turn around and shoot at you, so you can shoot him, being in fear for your life and those of your fellow patrons. In Canada, he would be going to jail for 3 years for possessing a firearm in a place not authorized by an Authorization to Transport, and likely attempt murder II because the perp was fleeing. Ask yourself if those are the kinds of laws you want, and try not to vote for someone like Iggy or McGuinty next time.

the crimes are now happening under Stephen Harper's majority conservative govt.

What has harper done to get rid of the problem? Does he even care?

[spike1128]

the crimes are now happening under Stephen Harper's majority conservative govt.

What has harper done to get rid of the problem? Does he even care?

None of the governments will do anything. Canada is a country of suckers, hence they can't even secure our own bounders from having guns imported illegally in Canada. The rest of the world just bent us over and there is nothing we can do about it. The criminals always get away without much punishment, hence all these crimes. Toronto is always like this, they create programs to prevent these People from hanging with the wrong crowds. They see crime rates go down, then cut the program. Year of the gun. Condemn the action. Create programs. Crimes lowered. Cut program. Year of gun. and repeat.

I am sure no matter who you vote for, we still won't get anything done. Ford is right wing, but he wouldn't care about rat's A$$ about Jane/Finch, Lawrence Height, or Rexdale. You know why? Because he is safe in central Etobicoke. Same with the left wing or the center.

[zz000ter]

It is difficult to hit a target while you are moving and while the perp is running.
What the shooter should have done is take a quick stop, aim fire and then move again.
... but when everything is happening so fast you really do not have time to think

The guy did the right thing for the first shots, he stops and takes shooting stance.

0:34 First shots
0:37 second shot
0:43 third shot
0:44 fourth shot
0:51 fifth shot

all the shooting in 17 seconds

BUT - I do not think he needed to take the shots out the door
but his adrenaline was probably pumping so hard that he was just acting
and not really thinking

[hdom]

For starters, they got in amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (part of the Safe Streets and Communities Act) last June, as part of its actions to combat gang and youth crime in Canada, which incl:

Toughened sentencing and bail provisions for serious gun crimes;

Strengthened the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous high-risk offenders;

Ensured that murders connected to organized crime will be treated automatically as first-degree murders and we have imposed mandatory jail time for drive-by or reckless shootings;

Ended sentence discounts for multiple murder; and

Passed legislation to abolish the faint-hope clause which allowed early parole for murderers.

You can debate on if these effectiveless, but you have to give the credit for doing something as soon as they have a majority.


the crimes are now happening under Stephen Harper's majority conservative govt.

What has harper done to get rid of the problem? Does he even care?

[ishfish]

so many cases where the perps got away, and came back for revenge.. (in fact, seems to be the case in Scarborough shooting). I'd waste all my bullets as well.

"Hey, that guy was so decent not shooting me in the back when he had the chance... wow, i won't rob that guy out of respect."

No?

:lol:

But what if he had shot and killed the perp as he was running out the door - and maybe when he had fallen...maybe he would be charged? I certainly appreciate what you are saying. I wonder what the law would say.

[Peckerwood]

Pfft. Guy can't shoot for crap.

Dawkins had a superficial wound in his left arm, but Henderson was shot in two places: his left buttock and his right hip.

That is actually a good number of hits considering how much they were running around after the first shot. I dare you to do better on moving targets that can think and react in such a random fashion.

[jacobe]

Normally, I don't root for the usage of guns but in this case I just wanted to high 5 the older man. Those two punks walked in the place like they were the boss and then they had their asses handed to them. Good job!

[aplayaz2000]

that'll show robbers

get *****ed

[olssy]

I don't think they guy was a Marine or had any military training judging by the way he shot. Just a fine upstanding concealed carry citizen that I wish were in every city in Canada.

Once the guy has threatened you with his gun, you don't know if he is going to turn around and shoot at you, so you can shoot him, being in fear for your life and those of your fellow patrons. In Canada, he would be going to jail for 3 years for possessing a firearm in a place not authorized by an Authorization to Transport, and likely attempt murder II because the perp was fleeing. Ask yourself if those are the kinds of laws you want, and try not to vote for someone like Iggy or McGuinty next time.

Yup, those are the kinds of laws I want, I'd prefer a total ban on all hand guns and maybe with a bit of luck I'll see that in my lifetime. I don't want people to have \guns as there are too many situations where people can get hurt or killed, just the accidental shootings are enough for me to think all guns should be banned. That old guy might look all cool and doing a great thing but he was lucky to not have killed either of the thieves or someone else in there, even more lucky the thieves didn't shoot back. If ever I'm robbed by someone with a gun I'm going to be praying someone else doesn't pull one out to protect me...

[kingofwale]

"Hey, that guy was so decent not shooting me in the back when he had the chance... wow, i won't rob that guy out of respect."

No?

:lol:

But what if he had shot and killed the perp as he was running out the door - and maybe when he had fallen...maybe he would be charged? I certainly appreciate what you are saying. I wonder what the law would say.

I remember there was a case of a lady shooting and killed someone who broke into her house to steal prescription drugs. She gave no warning and shot the guy in the face from the dark room.

she got off free (even been hailed as "hero"). No country will charge a 71 yr old guy for self defense.

[NuclearBlast]

Yup, those are the kinds of laws I want, I'd prefer a total ban on all hand guns and maybe with a bit of luck I'll see that in my lifetime.
I agree, criminals are most likely to completely obey the total ban on hand guns. There would be no more gun violence. Why don't we just impose total ban on murders as well, while we're at it?

[ishfish]

When does it move from Defense to Offense? With the video shown how long/far could the shooter chase the perp before he would be considered no longer engaging in defense? I don't expect anyone to know the answer, just thinking out loud.

[tritium4ever]

In Canada, he would be going to jail for 3 years for possessing a firearm in a place not authorized by an Authorization to Transport, and likely attempt murder II because the perp was fleeing. Ask yourself if those are the kinds of laws you want, and try not to vote for someone like Iggy or McGuinty next time.

Well in Canada he wouldn't have been charged with anything, cause he wouldn't have been able to legally carry the gun in the first place. So in Canada, the outcome of that same event would've looked like this:

- business and/or customers robbed
- possibly some dead or injured customers
- perps who got away because they were disguised and wearing gloves

In the US, the actual outcome was:

- no robbery victims
- all customers unharmed
- and perps who got shot and arrested

The only difference between these two outcomes was the presence of a single law-abiding man with a concealed carry permit.

[kingofwale]

Well in Canada he wouldn't have been charged with anything, cause he wouldn't have been able to legally carry the gun in the first place. So in Canada, the outcome of that same event would've looked like this:

- business and/or customers robbed
- possibly some dead or injured customers
- perps who got away because they were disguised and wearing gloves

In the US, the actual outcome was:

- no robbery victims
- all customers unharmed
- and perps who got shot and arrested

The only difference between these two outcomes was the presence of a single law-abiding man with a concealed carry permit.

let me bring in the third possibility here in Canada.

-old gentleman brings gun anyway
- gets arrested and send to jail for 10 years with possession
- perps sue the old gentleman, the business and city successfully for 10 million dollars.
- old gentleman dies in jail, store goes bankrupt and tax payers stuck with the bill.

sounds about right.

[LostInTruth]

Move to the U.S. then and find out who the real "good guys" are. Someone mentioned Canadians are "suckers," not really, but many take this great country for granted.

[TheRed]

Who would rob an Internet Cafe?? Not enough $$$$$$$$$

[Jimboski]

Who would rob an Internet Cafe?? Not enough $$$$$$$$$

They can carry out the computer rigs easily!

[rabbit]

I can't believe people weren't hitting the deck or finding cover when the shots started going off. I guess everything happened so fast.

[brian.gerson]

I'd prefer a total ban on all hand guns and maybe with a bit of luck I'll see that in my lifetime. I don't want people to have \guns as there are too many situations where people can get hurt or killed, just the accidental shootings are enough for me to think all guns should be banned.

I feel the same way about cars. I'd prefer a total ban on all powerful cars and maybe with a bit of luck I'll see that in my lifetime. I don't want people to have powerful cars as there are too many situations where people can get hurt or killed, just the accidents and drunk driving incidents are enough for me to think that all cars should be banned. It has nothing to do with the guy behind the wheel, it is the car itself that needs to be banned.

[feidailo]

righteous!

[hdave]

Well he does have a permit to carry a gun so I'm pretty sure he had the necessary training to be able to handle all this when the time comes!

Im not sure about all states, but for the most part you don't need special training down there.


JAC, divx: my advice is to go to a range, rent a holster and bring a friend to scream in your ear to simulate stress while you attempt to draw and fire on a moving target 20 yards away. If you do this, you will probably not make any more remarks like those.

+1


Good for him. Too bad if he did that in Canada he'd go to jail. The US laws makes a lot more sense than ours when it comes to personal defense. This guy possibly saved someone's life (who knows what those robbers would of did).

+1


Well in Canada he wouldn't have been charged with anything, cause he wouldn't have been able to legally carry the gun in the first place. So in Canada, the outcome of that same event would've looked like this:

- business and/or customers robbed
- possibly some dead or injured customers
- perps who got away because they were disguised and wearing gloves

In the US, the actual outcome was:

- no robbery victims
- all customers unharmed
- and perps who got shot and arrested

The only difference between these two outcomes was the presence of a single law-abiding man with a concealed carry permit.

+1

[JAC]

That is actually a good number of hits considering how much they were running around after the first shot. I dare you to do better on moving targets that can think and react in such a random fashion.

His first shot, he snuck up behind the guy and shot him from behind at a distance of approximately 10 feet. I would have thought you, of all people, would have been castigating him for not double-tapping into centre of mass.


keep that in mind that he might not really be shooting to kill.

He's an irresponsible fool to start shooting in a crowded room if he wasn't. He was extremely lucky the guy didn't start shooting back.

[divx]

at least cctv is doing its job, yay for more surveillance

[Peckerwood]

His first shot, he snuck up behind the guy and shot him from behind at a distance of approximately 10 feet. I would have thought you, of all people, would have been castigating him for not double-tapping into centre of mass.
Why would I suggest a "double-tapping into centre of mass"? Granted, the thoracic cavity is by far the best target, but the use of the term "double-tapping" simply invokes shades of assassination. Good use of the term if an insult is the objective.


He's an irresponsible fool to start shooting in a crowded room if he wasn't. He was extremely lucky the guy didn't start shooting back.
Actually in the majority of circumstances the criminals tend not to shoot back but instead run like hell...which was obvious in the video. The few times that they do shoot back, they do so while running and shooting over their shoulder randomly while hitting the scenery with their bullets. Once in a while somebody does get hit in this process, but it is rare.

[JAC]

Why would I suggest a "double-tapping into centre of mass"? Granted, the thoracic cavity is by far the best target, but the use of the term "double-tapping" simply invokes shades of assassination. Good use of the term if an insult is the objective.
You and I both know what a double tap is, so don't dissemble. For those that don't, it's a legitimate shooting technique taught to police and military personnel.


Actually in the majority of circumstances the criminals tend not to shoot back but instead run like hell...which was obvious in the video. The few times that they do shoot back, they do so while running and shooting over their shoulder randomly while hitting the scenery with their bullets. Once in a while somebody does get hit in this process, but it is rare.
Unless you can substantiate that, it's just wishful thinking. The old man clearly had little or no training in firearms use, and was a fool to start shooting when he was painfully unequipped to do so. If the robbers hadn't been cowards, it could have turned in to a bloodbath.

[Triad]

This will be my lifes goal until I become the goddamn batman!

[kingofwale]

This will be my lifes goal until I become the goddamn batman!

sorry to break your dream, but batman doesn't use guns.

[rabbit]

Run for cover, JAC and Peckerwood are shooting it out in a pissing match at RFD!

[masterhapposai]

sorry to break your dream, but batman doesn't use guns.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SIUL8EbikTs/TDfK82ga78I/AAAAAAAABFo/qB7yREykOmo/s1600/BatmanGun.jpg

[Peckerwood]

Run for cover, JAC and Peckerwood are shooting it out in a pissing match at RFD!

Not really...he came to a battle of wits unarmed. The fact that he doesn't know how many guns have been voluntarily reported to CBSA agents since the 1940's simply means he hasn't done the research.

Even Solicitor General Warren Allmand knew that there were 18 million guns in Canada back in 1976...but JAC hasn't bothered to research or read that report.

Like I said...he isn't much of a challenge

[D-Roc]

I feel the same way about cars. I'd prefer a total ban on all powerful cars and maybe with a bit of luck I'll see that in my lifetime. I don't want people to have powerful cars as there are too many situations where people can get hurt or killed, just the accidents and drunk driving incidents are enough for me to think that all cars should be banned. It has nothing to do with the guy behind the wheel, it is the car itself that needs to be banned.


Cars are designed to be used for transportation and can be misused for hurting or killing someone. Guns are designed to be used for killing. There is no comparison between the two.

That old guy is very fortunate that he did not miss and hit someone else.

[longitude]

Actually in the majority of circumstances the criminals tend not to shoot back but instead run like hell...which was obvious in the video. The few times that they do shoot back, they do so while running and shooting over their shoulder randomly while hitting the scenery with their bullets. Once in a while somebody does get hit in this process, but it is rare.

if grandpa had accidentally shot the cashier, would it have been worth it?

[Peckerwood]

if grandpa had accidentally shot the cashier, would it have been worth it?

Can you statistically prove that this happens often enough to ban concealed carry altogether? Consider that you have nearly 20 years of data so far, along with about 2.3 million defensive uses per year with a firearm in the US.

I am certain that you shouldn't have any problem coming up with more hard facts other than conjecture.

[uber_shnitz]

Good for him! I don't advocate gun laws but I believe in standing up for yourself or others if it comes down to it.

[JAC]

Not really...he came to a battle of wits unarmed. The fact that he doesn't know how many guns have been voluntarily reported to CBSA agents since the 1940's simply means he hasn't done the research.
Even Solicitor General Warren Allmand knew that there were 18 million guns in Canada back in 1976...but JAC hasn't bothered to research or read that report.
Like I said...he isn't much of a challenge

To suggest we are engaged in a battle of wits falsely presumes you had any to begin with.

Rather, let us say I am patiently enduring your fallacious arguments and waiting for you to present a logical, coherent thought. Though given the source, I expect to be waiting a long time.

Since you seem to be stuck on this particular point, let me explain it again for you, in simpler terms you may understand:

Number of guns not matter. Only matters that bad guys go to jail when caught.

[Peckerwood]

To suggest we are engaged in a battle of wits falsely presumes you had any to begin with.

Rather, let us say I am patiently enduring your fallacious arguments and waiting for you to present a logical, coherent thought. Though given the source, I expect to be waiting a long time.

Since you seem to be stuck on this particular point, let me explain it again for you, in simpler terms you may understand:

Number of guns not matter. Only matters that bad guys go to jail when caught.

As you are still having a difficult time understanding the measure to which your policy concept will fail miserably, I will do my best to spell it out for you (as DrXenon's post seem to have fallen on deaf ears)

The number of guns (as I had posted earlier) presents an estimate on possible gun ownership, relating specifically to the possible number of gun owners out there. With a estimated 6 million UNLICENSED gun owners amoung us, two primary questions arise...why have they refused to get a license in the first place? and if a lack of licensing is so dangerous then why hasn't the crime and murder rate related to guns climbed drastically to reflect this assumption?

Part of the reason for the lack of licensing is due to a pure lack of trust considering the comments made in recent past by politicians bent on arbitrary uncompensated confiscation of their property(guns). Politicians have given them more than enough to mistrust. And since these gun owners are not the ones committing any murders or robberies, they are obviously not the threat that anti-gunners deem them to be. Which leads to the crux of your argument...mandatory jail time.

If they aren't already a threat, and a government promise of 3 years in jail is not enough to persuade them to be fearful of that government and thus run into the CFO's Office en masse to license themselves and register their guns...then how much trust are you engendering with the threat of even more jail time? Not only are you telling them that you want to confiscate their property, but now you want to imprison them for 10 years or more.

Forget trust...why at this point should they even respect you?

Forces tends to serve as a motivator for resistance. The best complication of your argument though is the simple fact that without knowing who they are or where they store those illicit guns...you won't be jailing anyone. AND THEY KNOW IT. They know for a simple fact that you CANNOT know who they are unless they actually come in and give their names, addresses, and serial numbers etc. You are basically dependent upon them for that info...and what is more amusing is that you actually think they are all that stupid to just come in and give it to you gratis. they have lasted this long without saying a single word, and the level of mistrust has continued...but you still think that they will fear your policy enough to drop all of their mistrust...switch sides...and give up their last bastion just to make you feel better.

You are not just naive...you are up against a wall...a wall composed of 6 million people who mistrust you, loathe your ideas, and despise your contempt that you hold for them. A contempt that isn't even justified considering that the only "crime" they have committed, is to own property that you don't like.

This is somewhat akin to your other argument that you lost miserably in that you wanted to force people to make improvements to their properties simply out of a pure lack of ability on your part to either avert your eyes or mind your own business.

[JAC]

Again, unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Yes, the 6 million unregistered gun owners will continue to hide their toys, and no legislation will change that. By implementing uncompromising penalties for carrying offences there will exist the mechanism to permanently remove from society both the criminal element and those who prove too stupid to handle their weapons in a responsible manner.


This is somewhat akin to your other argument that you lost miserably in that you wanted to force people to make improvements to their properties simply out of a pure lack of ability on your part to either avert your eyes or mind your own business.
I have lost no arguments to you. You are simply incapable of perceiving anything outside of your narrow self-interest, most likely symptomatic of living in an area where your closest neighbours have four legs. If you ever move to civilization, gods forbid, you will find your frontier mentality rather poorly received. You can't leave yer pickup on blocks round here, bubba.

[Peckerwood]

Again, unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Yes, the 6 million unregistered gun owners will continue to hide their toys, and no legislation will change that. By implementing uncompromising penalties for carrying offences there will exist the mechanism to permanently remove from society both the criminal element and those who prove too stupid to handle their weapons in a responsible manner.
You didn't say carrying though. You specifically said "possession" which is the same legally as ownership. Considering that you are demanding penalties for something that would be tried in a court of law, I understood the definition of "possession" from a legal standpoint, and as such argued in that direction.

Your original post:
Posession of an unregistered firearm = automatic life in prison with no possibility of parole.

Also to add, you admit that those 6 million gun owners will continue to hide their property, and admit that no legislation will change that. But consider that it is a crime to possess without a license, you may want to re-evaluate your prior statement then (in regards to possession vs carrying)


I have lost no arguments to you. You are simply incapable of perceiving anything outside of your narrow self-interest, most likely symptomatic of living in an area where your closest neighbours have four legs. If you ever move to civilization, gods forbid, you will find your frontier mentality rather poorly received.
What of me that you call "narrow self-interest" is actually an absolute respect for privacy and the right to private property, unlike your prior desire for extenuated vanity through the forced expectations you foist on others and their properties to beef up your own property values. Self interest indeed.

Your inability to respect others that pose no immediate threat to you, is a damning conviction of your meddling mindset. Not to mention your desire in that original thread to profit(increased property values) off of the forced labours of others garnered by a demand for frivolous legislation to enforce such.

You can't leave yer pickup on blocks round here, bubba.
This is all you have?

[JAC]

You didn't say carrying though. You specifically said "possession" which is the same legally as ownership. Considering that you are demanding penalties for something that would be tried in a court of law, I understood the definition of "possession" from a legal standpoint, and as such argued in that direction.
Semantics. I'll shed no tears for gun owners who are convicted of possession of an illegal firearm, whether it is on their person or not. The ideal is for all owners to be registered, all weapons to be licensed. It then becomes obvious who is a criminal, no?

Now, do I expect this ideal situation? No. I don't even think it's a realistic goal. But the important thing is that government needs to give gun control legislation some teeth, before we descend in to the anarchy that is the United States.


What of me that you call "narrow self-interest" is actually an absolute respect for privacy and the right to private property, unlike your prior desire for extenuated vanity through the forced expectations you foist on others and their properties to beef up your own property values. Self interest indeed.
Unfortunately, your "ideals" are incompatible with modern society. When living in close proximity to large numbers of other people, compromises are necessary. Antisocial behaviors must be moderated, whether that behaviour entails acceding to gun control laws, or not blaring loud music in the middle of the night, or simply cleaning the empties off your front lawn.


Your inability to respect others that pose no immediate threat to you, is a damning conviction of your meddling mindset. Not to mention your desire in that original thread to profit(increased property values) off of the forced labours of others garnered by a demand for frivolous legislation to enforce such
On the contrary. I merely respect the social contract, and expect others to do the same. You have chosen a remote, isolated lifestyle, where property values don't matter and a casual attitude towards firearms stems from hostile fauna. And that makes your opinions of life in urban and suburban areas completely worthless.


This is all you have?
No, just poking fun at your back-woods mentality.

[freeloader1969]

let me bring in the third possibility here in Canada.

-old gentleman brings gun anyway
- gets arrested and send to jail for 10 years with possession
- perps sue the old gentleman, the business and city successfully for 10 million dollars.
- old gentleman dies in jail, store goes bankrupt and tax payers stuck with the bill.

sounds about right.

Yeah that's about right. Unfortunately we have too many idiots who think criminals should have all the rights and the victims, none. It's time for our laws to be totally reworked to allow people to protect their property and more importantly themselves without fear of criminal or civil charges.

[Ottomaddox]

if grandpa had accidentally shot the cashier, would it have been worth it?

Everyone's ok with a little collateral damage if we get a couple of bad guys along the way too...

Here's an interesting article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html

[tritium4ever]

Semantics. I'll shed no tears for gun owners who are convicted of possession of an illegal firearm, whether it is on their person or not. The ideal is for all owners to be registered, all weapons to be licensed. It then becomes obvious who is a criminal, no?

No it's not obvious at all, because the criminals aren't licensed and their firearms aren't registered. Believe it or not, criminals disobey laws (that's the very definition of a criminal), so keeping track of the law-abiding gun owners does absolutely nothing to deter or stop criminals. That's why gun registries don't work and never will work.

[JAC]

No it's not obvious at all, because the criminals aren't licensed and their firearms aren't registered. Believe it or not, criminals disobey laws (that's the very definition of a criminal), so keeping track of the law-abiding gun owners does absolutely nothing to deter or stop criminals. That's why gun registries don't work and never will work.

Read my next paragraph. I said it was ideal, not feasible. But under those ideal circumstance, it kinda does. Scenario: you get discovered with a weapon on your person, in your vehicle or in your home. A registry search reveals the weapon is not registered, and therefore illegal. You are therefore convicted of possession of an illegal firearm and sentenced appropriately.

But yeah, the goddamn paranoia and general intractability of gun owners was obviously greatly underestimated when the government created the registry.

[tritium4ever]

Read my next paragraph. I said it was ideal, not feasible. But under those ideal circumstance, it kinda does. Scenario: you get discovered with a weapon on your person, in your vehicle or in your home. A registry search reveals the weapon is not registered, and therefore illegal. You are therefore convicted of possession of an illegal firearm and sentenced appropriately.

Okay, let's assume we live in your utopian society where every single gun in the country is registered. Your way of "stopping crime" requires the police to find the gun before it's used. Unfortunately that's not the way it happens in the real world. It also completely ignores the licensing system, which is a pre-requisite to owning a firearm. With licensing (which we already have), registration is irrelevant...you're either allowed to own a gun, or you're not.

Say a cop stops me while I'm in possession of a long gun. It's not registered, because the long gun registry is dead. The officer simply checks for my firearms license...if I have one I'm free to go, if I don't I'm going to jail. How is this any different from your scenario above, which requires registration of all guns? Registration doesn't prevent gun crime any more than car registration prevents auto accidents.


But yeah, the goddamn paranoia and general intractability of gun owners was obviously greatly underestimated when the government created the registry.

Your continual personal attacks in this thread are kinda sad, especially where you accuse Peckerwood of being out of touch with city dwellers because he lives in northern Canada. Well I've got guns, and I live in Scarborough...now what? Am I also out of touch?

[googoo]

[QUOTE]I wish I was able to "carry"
- so that I can protect myself and others
like this brave old guy did![QUOTE]

Vigilante justice....that's what need more of:facepalm: ...All in the name of "self protection" UH HUH!

[JAC]

Okay, let's assume we live in your utopian society where every single gun in the country is registered. Your way of "stopping crime" requires the police to find the gun before it's used. Unfortunately that's not the way it happens in the real world. It also completely ignores the licensing system, which is a pre-requisite to owning a firearm. With licensing (which we already have), registration is irrelevant...you're either allowed to own a gun, or you're not.
Don't be daft. I never once correlated stopping crime with finding a weapon ahead of time. I said it's time to put some teeth into possession offences. Licensing and registration are a means to that end.


Say a cop stops me while I'm in possession of a long gun. It's not registered, because the long gun registry is dead. The officer simply checks for my firearms license...if I have one I'm free to go, if I don't I'm going to jail. How is this any different from your scenario above, which requires registration of all guns? [i]Registration doesn't prevent gun crime any more than car registration prevents auto accidents.

Because of the blindingly obvious fact that you're carrying an unregistered deadly weapon. It boggles my mind that you people register your vehicles, get a drivers license, license your pets, your boats, get a fishing license, and yet at the perfectly reasonable request of registering an item for which the only purposes are to kill or practice killing, you turn into Americans.


Your continual personal attacks in this thread are kinda sad, especially where you accuse Peckerwood of being out of touch with city dwellers because he lives in northern Canada. Well I've got guns, and I live in Scarborough...now what? Am I also out of touch?
And his personal attacks on me are perfectly fine, because you argree with him? Ask the families of the victims at the block party what they think of gun owners.

[tritium4ever]

Don't be daft. I never once correlated stopping crime with finding a weapon ahead of time. I said it's time to put some teeth into possession offences. Licensing and registration are a means to that end.

You'll note that licensing and registration did not stop the Eaton Centre shooting, or the Danzig St. shooting, or in fact any other shooting. Why? Because criminals can't get licenses and they don't register their illegal guns.


Because of the blindingly obvious fact that you're carrying an unregistered deadly weapon. It boggles my mind that you people register your vehicles, get a drivers license, license your pets, your boats, get a fishing license, and yet at the perfectly reasonable request of registering an item for which the only purposes are to kill or practice killing, you turn into Americans.

You're confusing the issue of licensing and registration. The two are entirely different things. Licensing deals with the individual, whereas registration deals with an inanimate object. Registration can not and will not affect whether that object will be used for lawful purposes or unlawful purposes. Cars are registered, but that won't stop me getting into it and deliberately running someone over. It's no different for a gun.

And if you think registering guns are reasonable, why not register knives? They're very deadly weapons and can easily be used to kill.



Ask the families of the victims at the block party what they think of gun owners.

The difference is, I have a gun license and the people at the block party didn't.

[Peckerwood]

Semantics. I'll shed no tears for gun owners who are convicted of possession of an illegal firearm, whether it is on their person or not.
Define illegal firearm? At one point in time guns were not illegal and you required no license to own them outside of restricted firearms. At some point in time, the anti-gunners got control and started demanding permission to own these things. The reason? Handgun registration and original restricted weapons permits came about because of immigrant violence back during the late 1920's. Demand for the first Firearm's Acquisition Certificate was due to the 1970's and the separatist violence that saw fit to have the Prime Minister blame the rest of Canada's gun owners for the actions of political terrorists who were kidnapping Members of Parliament. the latter actually had no shootings in the streets or school shootings, etc etc...but it still didn't stop Trudeau (a former member of the Canadian Communist Party) from blaming gun ownership.

Collective punishment was the course of both forms of licensing, and in turn sought to punish regular gun owners for the actions of an extremely small minority.


The ideal is for all owners to be registered, all weapons to be licensed. It then becomes obvious who is a criminal, no?
Criminalized for the mere possession of property without any actual violent crime committed, nor tort, nor robbery etc etc etc.

And you got the licensing/registration backwards (not surprised though)


Now, do I expect this ideal situation? No. I don't even think it's a realistic goal.
If it is unrealistic, then what fantasy world did you derive it's existence from.

I prefer real solutions in the real world...not mystical ideas bent on waving magical wands


But the important thing is that government needs to give gun control legislation some teeth, before we descend in to the anarchy that is the United States.
If it doesn't respect private property rights where no crime has been committed then it becomes cruel and unusual punishment and thus is unconstitutional as that one judge pointed out with the mandatory sentencing of 3 years.


Unfortunately, your "ideals" are incompatible with modern society. When living in close proximity to large numbers of other people, compromises are necessary.
When did "modern society" replace privacy rights with an intrusive mob mentality? Unless I am somehow entering your home with my actions...then it is none of your damned business what I do. Especially if I pose no direct threat to your peace.


Antisocial behaviors must be moderated, whether that behaviour entails acceding to gun control laws, or not blaring loud music in the middle of the night, or simply cleaning the empties off your front lawn.
Antisocial behaviour is generally equated with violence. I am under no obligation in law to actually be social in any regard...and as such my privacy trumps your desire to stick your nose into my home and personal affairs. If my music is loud, then I am intruding into your peace, and as such it becomes a part of disturbance. But empties on the lawn? Who cares...avert your eyes, and be responsible for your own bodily functions. Stop expecting others to modify their lives just to suit your inability to control yourself.


On the contrary. I merely respect the social contract, and expect others to do the same.
It isn't the social contract that you are alluding to, as that is a contract between the people and their government...not with their neighbours. The social contract does not eliminate privacy rights or property rights, but instead it was developed to protect those rights by forcing conditions on the central government thus limiting their powers so as to maintain and empower personal rights and liberties. You need to put down Marx/Engels, and go back to Rousseau and read it again.


You have chosen a remote, isolated lifestyle, where property values don't matter and a casual attitude towards firearms stems from hostile fauna. And that makes your opinions of life in urban and suburban areas completely worthless.
I actually live in town now, and still the same mentality exists despite being close to each other. The people in this community are absolutely awesome, and they respect privacy to an amazing degree. Everyone here is nice to each other as well and waves when they walk by. I don't care what my neighbour's yard looks like, and they don't care what mine looks like. That is called mutual respect.

Compare that to the life I came from...Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver(yes I used to live in the cities) where everyone is paranoid, they don't talk to strangers, they look away or scowl when you smile and wave, and their neighbourhoods act with a mob mentality and utter disrespect for each other whereby they concern themselves only with status symbols and materialistic petty directives.


No, just poking fun at your back-woods mentality.
You would need to know more about me first before making that assumption.

[Peckerwood]

And his personal attacks on me are perfectly fine, because you argree with him? Ask the families of the victims at the block party what they think of gun owners.
You mean the gang members that got together to have a "Hennessy Party"? Most of whom were "known to police"?

[Abel4Life]

Score one yes, Win No. A win would of netted two dead thugs which would have prevented future crimes from these 2 individuals.

[brian.gerson]

http://slowfacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/simple-lesson.jpg?w=480&h=476

[googoo]

I love these gun fans, the ones that argue "yeah, but a knife can kill too!!!", except a knife, pencil ETC were created for other reasons, a gun was created for one reason, and that is to KILL something/one else!

[uber_shnitz]

http://slowfacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/simple-lesson.jpg?w=480&h=476
No but arming them isn't the solution either.

The best way IMO is to crack down and disarm as many criminals as possible.

[Rainne]

Tbh, it really depends on the maturity/intelligence of the country.

For example, Germany has the Autobahn, where people go 200km/hr+ and there are no traffic accidents.

We have 100 km/hr limits and the 401/DVP gets blocked everyday for some random traffic accident.