Concealed-weapon owner shoots hatchet-wielding attacker in Wash. 7-Eleven

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Mar 14, 2016.

  1. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-hatchet-wielding-attacker-in-wash-7-eleven/
    why can't some just kill themselves instead of wanting to take others out?
     
  2. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2
    There really is no good answer; there may be a correct answer but it might not make any sense. It could be mental illness, it could be directed or misdirected anger. At least this time the bad guy didn't have a gun, otherwise the outcome might have been worse.
     
  3. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    Likewise, the only reason it wasn't worse was because someone with a CCW was able to stop the attacker.
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Pity such people of Colorado, a CCW state, weren't in the movie theater that fateful day. A lot more lives would have been saved. Sorry for the tangent, but the point is it's not just a matter of being CCW. People who have weapons and can use them accurately and quickly are needed. And the police can't be everywhere 24/7, not even if NSPD51 had to be enacted.

    I hope the guy who shot the creep won't go through too much red tape, especially if cameras show enough of the context. Still, that guy doesn't own the store so it was nice of him to help the store owner out. I wonder how the store owner will respond? Hopefully better than the owners that fire clerks who do what the criminal says (or those that get fired because they defended the store instead of acquiescing to the criminal)... and those cameras, if the recordings are encrypted then that only becomes more problematic...
     
  5. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    I carry when I'm out and about with my family.

    I made up my mind a while ago that I wouldn't draw my weapon unless we were in immediate danger. I'm not drawing my weapon to save anyone else.

    Don't want to deal with some person's family suing me because their little angel was turning their life around and was shot unjustly.
     
  6. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    In this day you could be sued by the victim too for trauma.
     
  7. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    got to say things really depend on the situation, robbery? carjacking? have at it, it's just property. but if a moron is just taking others out? better step in & out an end to it.
     
  8. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    If I'm with my family (wife and daughter) I'm not taking the chance. My only priority at that point would be to get them out of danger. Can't take the chance of getting taken out and no one to defend the only two things in the world that really matter to me.

    If I were by myself it would really depend on the situation. I guess it all depends on what is going down and how sideways it gets.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    judged by 6/carried by 12.
    completely agree.
     
  10. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #10
    sued by 20
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    if you rather visit the grave of wife/kids or they visit yours, have at it; you can always hope things don't end up there.
     
  12. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
    After getting sued it may be a better choice.
     
  13. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    visiting my kids grave will NEVER be a choice.
     
  14. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #14
  15. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15
    well if they die it will be. people do die of other causes. if it is you you don't have to worry about it (G) and you are free from getting sued a fate worse then death.
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    apples/oranges, SOME deaths are preventable.
     
  17. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #17
    but not getting sued. hey will find you and take your money.
     
  18. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    I can replace money, I can't replace my wife/kids.
     
  19. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #19
    really? you don't know how to shop.
     
  20. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    [​IMG]
     
  21. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
  22. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    that is why I will never remarry , wife said she doesn't believe me and I told her to go ahead & die so she could watch me not remarry :p

    I am putting A/C in the dog house :p
     
  23. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #23
    I believe this is what the Israelis do. Off duty police, military, and related security personnel who have been trained with firearms are required to keep their weapons on them in order to deal with the terrorist threats. As I see it, this is a good thing. These off duty personnel would be in essentially street clothes and since they are not in uniform, an attacker won't know who they are. That injects a big element of uncertainty when an attacker is planning an attack, especially since apparently the favorite venues to attack are those where people are not armed (e.g., "gun free zones").
     
  24. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #24
    but those are trained people not bubba with a gun that may or may not be trained but never trained good enough.
     
  25. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #25
    I was curious about this thread getting bumped and I'm sort of sorry to have clicked to investigate. ;)
     

Share This Page