These guys got arrested and released...after a strong arm robbery! Times have changed alot... or small town kids with connected parents havent changed at all.

>> ^csnel3:

These guys got arrested and released...after a strong arm robbery! Times have changed alot... or small town kids with connected parents havent changed at all.


Or deciding not to press criminal charges so you pursue civil charges, not that one precludes the other, just easier to get money for someone whom isn't in jail.

[voicepicard] We draw the line HE-AH![/voicepicard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmmHPE8EvA

Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.

Carry a gun. Problem solved.

Seems odd that the perp's faces are blurred in the security video, especially when they stick that fullscreen headshot of one of them afterwards.

Such idiots. Your bandanna mask will easily become how I choke you to death. Fuckin' beginners...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.


If you watch it again, you'll see the guy to the side grabbed the clerk's arm and suckerpunched him at the same time BECAUSE he was reaching for something under the desk. He probably thought it was a gun. And if it had been one, I would bet you it would end up in the hands of the hooligans. And that could have ended a lot worse for everyone. People take it personal when it seems like you're about to kill them. Especially idiot thugs.

Because some piece of excrement might get the gun away from the defender is no reason to not be armed...BUT it really depends on the individual. The proprietor had a panic button installed (a button the excrement probably knew about) in anticipation of trouble and perhaps didn't think having a firearm was warranted, or that he would invest the time and money to train himself to the point of proficiency. I hope he does get one, since the vermin will no doubt be back on the streets.

>> ^entr0py:

If you watch it again, you'll see the guy to the side grabbed the clerk's arm and suckerpunched him at the same time BECAUSE he was reaching for something under the desk. He probably thought it was a gun. And if it had been one, I would bet you it would end up in the hands of the hooligans. And that could have ended a lot worse for everyone. People take it personal when it seems like you're about to kill them. Especially idiot thugs.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Seems odd that the perp's faces are blurred in the security video, especially when they stick that fullscreen headshot of one of them afterwards.


That's because they are minors. Their identities must be protected because they are under 18 and therefore are innocent angels.

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.

Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.

2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!
They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.

Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.
3. If you guys had it your way:

The store owner would have had been armed. Right.

..But the kids probably would have been armed too.
Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.

Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!

Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..

Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.


>> ^chilaxe:

Carry a gun. Problem solved.


>> ^Samaelsmith:
That's because they are minors. Their identities must be protected because they are under 18 and therefore are innocent angels.

Don't pixelate their faces! Let's se the cunts. Identities don't have to be protected, it's just surveillance camera footage on the TV. No right to anonymity there.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Don't pixelate their faces! Let's se the cunts. Identities don't have to be protected, it's just surveillance camera footage on the TV. No right to anonymity there.


They have laws against posting the identity of a minor without his parent's consent etc etc. Lots of red tape.

@Tymbrwulf No one expects the Red Tape Inquisition!

@GenjiKilpatrick, don't lump me in with the gun nuts. I just think that there shouldn't be any magical age below which you are considered more innocent, special, rehabilitatable or whatever than someone a couple years older. If you are old enough to willingly commit a crime you should be old enough to face consequences.

NNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."

My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."

See how dumb that sounds?

>> ^chilaxe:
Carry a gun. Problem solved.


Yes! Then people could have died! Yay!

@GenjiKilpatrick and @shponglefan,

My statement was incomplete. It should have been: "Carry a gun, if you dislike being subject to violence by neanderthal assholes. Problem solved."

You are, of course, free to leave yourself and your family open to "unforeseeable" violence. That's called unsophisticated risk management, and most humans seem unsophisticated in that way. They'd be better off sophisticated, but you can't change people.

It's okay if you don't want to carry a gun. It's called natural selection. We don't want you in our gene pool.

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.

That is true, but this was one was, by cowards running in a pack (not one of which suggested what they were planning was stupid).

Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.

To us watching our screens with the full story explained, they were "just dumb kids". When you're being attacked, it's a little different. How were the victims to know if the vermin didn't have knives (a far deadlier weapon at close range).

2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!

I salute their incompetence, but that shouldn't soften any penalties.

They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.

Assuming you lean left, shouldn't that outrage you that these spoiled youths and their tax-loophole parents beat the system?

Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.

Foe self-defense, it's hard to beat.

3. If you guys had it your way:

The store owner would have had been armed. Right.

That's his choice. I'd have preferred he be armed as probably would those Americans that protect their lives and property (usually without a shot being fired) over 2 million times a year.

..But the kids probably would have been armed too.

And they would have gone to prison for it.

Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.

Or they might have decided "maybe a Nitendo DS (sic) isn't worth getting shot over."


Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!

Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..

Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.

All right, I think we're done here. It's your right to be a victim, just don't extend it to others.

>> ^chilaxe:You are, of course, free to leave yourself and your family open to "unforeseeable" violence. That's called unsophisticated risk management, and most humans seem unsophisticated in that way. They'd be better off sophisticated, but you can't change people.



I prefer to live somewhere where I am don't feel afraid enough to arm myself.

@Samaelsmith
Yeah. I get that and totally agree.
I just question how much a human is actually in control of her or his mind brain and body at all times.

http://videosift.com/video/You-Are-Your-Brain-Transforming-Criminal-Justice

Like the video says, most of our drives and wants are subconscious.

No need for kid gloves but physiological immaturity [i.e. prefrontal cortex] is a relevant consideration during the Demon-Angel Continuum placement test.

@quantumushroom
On the same note..

Do you really think an impulsive person is thinking "Hey, I might get hurt or have to suffer the negative consequences of my actions later on." ??

No, impulse is present oriented.

They're not thinking about the future.
They are thinking "How can I get what I want now?"

Since in your culture every major dispute can be solved with the presence of a gun.

Solution for quick cash + nintendo ds = Bigger/More Guns.

>> ^blankfist:

So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."
My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."
See how dumb that sounds?


Yeah, because it's not like cops have gone through a rigorous training regime for things like handling their weapons.

No, no you're totally right, guy who bought a gun and went to the shooting range twice = Cop.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^blankfist:
So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."
My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."
See how dumb that sounds?

Yeah, because it's not like cops have gone through a rigorous training regime for things like handling their weapons.
No, no you're totally right, guy who bought a gun and went to the shooting range twice = Cop.


I guess Shepppard indirectly answered your question.

Small town? Really? Dallas's population density: 3,697.44/sq mi. Phoenix: 2,937.8/sq mi
Kaneohe? 5,320.7/sq mi. The entire island might as well be one big city. Secondly, how little does your dick have to be to just walk up to some thug that isn't even wielding a weapon and hand him your money because he asked for it?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Social context folks.
1. Not every crime is perpetrated by a violent thug.
Those kids obviously weren't even mature enough to know what the hell they were doing while tryin' to rob those pudgy gaming patrons.
2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN ROB CHUBBY GAMER KIDS!
They live in a fairly small, upper middle-class town.
That's why the only got slapped on the wrists.
Tho of course, your cure-all solution is a gun.
3. If you guys had it your way:
The store owner would have had been armed. Right.
..But the kids probably would have been armed too.
Since the little shits probably definitely would have known about the gun just like the panic button.
Congrats!
Now you have an Armed Dick Wagglin' Contest between two or more completely inept humans.
Who gonna shoot first?!
Oh, that's right.
You guys don't know..
Or care, because you're already off curing socialism with AKs.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Replace "panic button" with ".357" and this video would be about 10 seconds long.

>> ^chilaxe:
Carry a gun. Problem solved.

>> ^Samaelsmith:
That's because they are minors. Their identities must be protected because they are under 18 and therefore are innocent angels.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^blankfist:
So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."
My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."
See how dumb that sounds?

Yeah, because it's not like cops have gone through a rigorous training regime for things like handling their weapons.
No, no you're totally right, guy who bought a gun and went to the shooting range twice = Cop.


So, are you now arguing that Constitutional rights to bear arms should only be honored and given to those with state and federal mandated training? Ridiculous. Anyhow, that's not what I was commenting on.

Anti-gun nuts always point out extreme examples of where guns could be dangerous under certain and specific circumstances. They speak with unfounded and baseless certainty that the criminals would be capable of wrestling the gun from the armed victim.

Their hypothesis of danger assumes the criminals are A) confident enough to attempt a retrieval of a weapon from someone's possession and B) extremely capable with a firearm, and that the victim is C) not capable with the firearm and D) not confident and able to command the situation with a firearm in his possession. It's too extreme and far-fetched a set of criteria to be plausible. That's what I was commenting on.

Don't put words in my mouth @blankfist, your comment was implying that civilians armed with guns are just as capable of handling it as a police officer is. I was remarking on that, not your idiotic second amendment.

How bout we put it this way, take a cop, who has gone through training for things like handling their guns under pressure (Be it a quick draw, or close quarters fighting) and someone who bought a gun and hasn't been trained with it, and see which one of them handles better under the situation of a criminal trying to grab it.

You're not an idiot, don't act like one.

@Shepppard, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and I don't think I did. And I don't think I'm acting like an idiot.

It's possible, and even probable, that a cop with ample training and muscle memory will be better at at minimizing the window of opportunity for an assailant to wrestle the gun away from him than an untrained gun owner. Possible. But what does that prove? Having an assailant attempt to wrestle a gun away from a victim is such an extreme situation that requires so many specific and perfect factors that it cannot adequately prove any rule.

I'll say this much, if a gun owner goes to a firing range more than two or three times, he/she would have plenty of "training" to feel comfortable and confident enough to handle a firearm in any situation where their life feels threatened. I was trained in the military, and I can tell you that my training was less than that - mainly because I was navy and not marines or army.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by saber2x.

Cops are trained. Regular people are not. Guns are bad, mkay?
Edit: Oh shitfuck, I should really read the whole thread before responding.
>> ^blankfist:

So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."
My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."
See how dumb that sounds?