Police: Man shoots armed robbers in Sonic drive-thru

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by luvmymbpr, Jan 22, 2015.

  1. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #1
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    Only got two of them? Pity, he must have ran out of rounds.
     
  3. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #4
    I know. Too bad he didn't kill all 4 of them. Talk about extreme savings for us tax payers.

    ----------

    Too bad the child didn't shoot and kill the father for being a horrible, negligent parent. I love the article title: "suicide." Uhhh pretty sure a 2yr old doesn't have the brain capacity to understand suicide. It's called an accident (negligent parents).
     
  4. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #5
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    Good mothers do it all the time, they call. It "choice":eek:


    Anyways he needs a bit of practice to drop the rest next time
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    That's the only logical conclusion of their line of thinking
     
  7. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #8
    Ah yes, of course, the two are directly comparable.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    Of course not, fetus has no option at all. I support the mother doing what she thinks it's best .
     
  9. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #10
    To play devil's advocate, I wonder how many of these idiot 'armed robbers' there would be if guns were banned.

    Obviously, the counter to this statement is that criminals will find a way to get guns.

    I just wish there were a way to see results(in this country, in all parts) without causing another civil war.

    ....Anyways, good for the guy defending hundreds of dollars in Sonic profit. Where do these airhead criminals come from?
     
  10. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    Well, one might look at the amount of gun death and injury in countries where this is true. Hint...they're not higher.

    Well, reverse the economic policy of the US since the Reagan days, and I bet you'd see a huge difference. Wouldn't cause a civil war, but would anger a lot of folks who see game flipped.
     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #12
    Which economic policy are you referring to? Like exactly.
     
  12. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #13
    If guns were banned? Crime would be the same or worse. There are over 300 million privately owned guns in this country. They have a very good shelf life... as in forever if properly maintained. You could eliminate all ammo sales, and this country is still good for decades.

    Of course this would never happen, and you would be choosing the illusion of safety over allowing citizens to defend themselves against violent attackers; something that happens as least as much as violent crimes if not exponentially more.

    ----------

    Most countries have less than 2 million privately owned guns. We have over 300. If you find a country with 1/100 the automobiles as the U.S., I bet you'll find lower numbers in car crashes too.

    Despite 300 million guns, only about 600 idiots manage to kill themselves or someone else each year on accident. That's an astronomically low figure in a country with 330 million people. It's not an issue.
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    1 like an outright ban?
    2 assuming the robbery did not escalate into anything else.
    3. from our broken system.
    talk to a principal HERE in CA. their hands are tied behind their backs, kids selling weed AT SCHOOL are not spelled, one tard got busted 3 times w/o getting kicked out because the continuation school was already full of morons. there plenty of idiots who don't see any consequences to their actions, idiots who are willing to beat up teachers because OMG, they took their phones.

    parents who don't give a crap & teachers/educators with their hands tied behind their back is partly where the stupid "criminals" come from.
     
  14. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #15
    Exporting every possible job overseas. Lowering wages for even real jobs down to levels people can't live on. Sending all increases straight to the top instead of improving the overall situation. Hiring people as "contractors" even though they are really employees. You know, all that sort of thing. I didn't mean actual government policy.
     
  15. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #16
    I'm a contractor and do very well. The goal of a contractor is to make enough money to cover your own benefits.
     
  16. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #17
    Oh good, you're back.

    So, exponentially more armed defenses than the near 1.25 million yearly violent crimes. So there are actually like 5 million violent crimes committed each year, but 3/4 of them are handled by armed people? Okay, if you say so.

    It is noted that the violent crime rate in the US started a hasty decline right at about 1994, oddly enough the same time that the assault weapons ban came into law. And when did it creep back up for a couple of years? After the ban was lifted. But, just a mere coincidence, surely.

    So then it's settled: more guns equals more crime? So the way to reduce crime is to....reduce the number of guns? I'm really trying to get at your point here. Because you seem to say that the number of guns is the reason we have so much gun violence here, but then say we need all these guns to protect ourselves. It's quite the circular logic you got going on there, past member.

    This is a thread, and a post you quoted, about armed robbery. A lot more than 600 of those per year.

    ----------

    So am I. But there are plenty of people doing $10 an hour jobs who are brought on as contractors. I can point to a whole industry around here.
     
  17. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #18
    I missed you too! :D

    Studies and surveys say so.

    Actually, the decline has been steeper in the previous 10 years than in the time of the assault weapons ban. Every credible study shows that the assault weapons ban was completely worthless.



    Where did I say that? Textbook fallacy.

    Reducing the number of guns (setting aside that it's impossible) would not reduce crime in any way. In fact, countries like the UK and Australia saw a rise or no reduction in crimes following an outright ban.

    Actually I was speaking specifically about accidents. You mentioned injuries, and I just reread to see you mentioned gun deaths too. Since we already know it's a mere 600/yr that die accidentally by guns, I'm sure you're adding in 30,000 suicides; which only inflate the numbers and are largely irrelevant. People commit suicide with or without a gun. So, you're left with about 11k/yr in murders that is a declining rate of our population. We have also tripled our privately own guns to over 300 million. So, it's safe to assume that more guns does not equal more crime. 3x the amount of guns and a declining violent crime rate? I rest my case.



    Again, I misread it as injuries only and assumed accidents. I was on my phone.



    Then those people need to make themselves more marketable; more education, certificates, etc. There are jobs that pay $10/hr because people are willing to take them. They can either better themselves or go nowhere.
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #19
    Hmm...so are all of these stats wrong?

    [​IMG]
    Steady until 1994, then a sharp decline.

    [​IMG]
    Shows a rise until 1994, then a sharp decline.

    In fact, I can't find a single source showing that the violent crime rate was declining prior to 1994, especially for ten years. Maybe you can help me out.

    QUOTE: Most countries have less than 2 million privately owned guns. We have over 300. If you find a country with 1/100 the automobiles as the U.S., I bet you'll find lower numbers in car crashes too.

    So you're NOT saying that because we have more guns we have more gun-related crime and injury? Man, you are tough to keep up with. I don't know how the above statement could mean anything else.

    Yet, they still see a fraction of gun-related death.

    This is the overall crime rate in England and Wales, according to a government source:
    [​IMG]
    Looks like it started falling quite a bit after......1997. Homicide did indeed go up.

    How about Australia?
    [​IMG]
    Homicide rate went down after their ban.

    [​IMG]
    Assault did rise a bit, but robbery, sexual assault, and others either stayed the same or went down.

    The fact remains that the US has a far, far higher gun-related homicide and crime rate than any other developed country, by a long shot. And our only real difference is....more guns.







    There has never been anywhere close to 30,000 gun suicides per year in the US. And, in fact, the suicide rate went up somewhat between 2006 and 2011 after dropping quite a bit since.........the ban.

    You are right, gun homicide rates have indeed gone down. Yet, justifiable homicide (self defense?) rates have not, suicide has not, and accidents have not. The overall rate of death has barely changed, so it appears that we've helped gun crime, but transferred the death rate to others. Oh well.

    So the decline in America's middle class, and the economy as a whole, is because people aren't marketable enough? Sure, let's go with that.

    Note that I didn't say whether people should or should not be paid $10 an hour, but rather that they are being paid as 1099 contractors rather than employees. That has nothing to do with how marketable you are. That's an employer decision, and one that has helped in the decline of this once-great country.
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    Yes, and all of these people can also legally purchase and own a firearm.
     
  20. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #21
    If it isn't an actual government policy, how are you invoking the president? How does the president export jobs? Did the FBI get replaced the by chinese and we all missed it.
     
  21. samiwas, Jan 26, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015

    samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #22
    I guess I should have just said "the 80s". You're right, it wasn't actually Reagan's doing.
     
  22. luvmymbpr thread starter macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #23
    Context is important, and I failed on that part. What I meant was the 10 previous years from present time. Let me rephrase. Violent crimes declined more in the 10 years following the assault weapons ban than during the 10 years the ban was in effect. Now, we can dispute the semantics of which era had a sharper decline, and that's fine, but what we won't argue is the impact of the ban. By the way, you'll notice the crime rates continued to plummet following that ban.

    The ban was worthless. No credible source will claim it had any impact on crime whatsoever. How could it? It was a terrible bill, written by clueless people that knew nothing about weapons, to target "scary semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic features."

    The majority of gun related crimes occur with a) a handgun and b) a weapon that holds less than 10 rounds. All rifles combined, included assault rifles, account for a very small portion of violent crimes. They just aren't the weapon of choice for criminals. So, this cosmetic ban and mag restrictions, even if it was magically followed by criminals, was targeting the wrong weapons.

    Again, I thought you were specifically talking about accidents.


    Thanks to a completely difference society. Their poverty numbers, drug problems, and gang problems are nowhere near what we have. The weapons aren't to blame, since we tripled to over 300 million during a time that violent crime rates fell. It's the people to blame. Get rid of half a dozen areas in this country, like anti-gun Chicago, and we start dropping our numbers immensely.

    The UK continues to top the charts for violent crimes in the EU. The majority of the world is experiencing lowered violent crime rates over the past 20 years. The UK's tough gun laws, and their effectiveness, is based largely on circumstantial evidence. They still have murders, and they still have gun related crimes. It's also great to know that all those people in the cities are now defenseless against criminals, due to the awesome gun laws.

    Australia's intentional homicide rate was unchanged. In other words, their laws had to impact on criminals wanting to kill people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#Australia

    It's also worth noting that the UK and Australia have low violent crime rates, because they ALWAYS had low rates.



    You are simplifying the issue. The real differences, and major contributors, are the following:

    • Many large poverty stricken areas
    • A bigger drug problem than the entire continent of Europe
    • Gang wars that dwarf the gang issues in Europe
    • Over 11 million illegals in the US, which contribute to crime and outnumber all the illegals on the entire continent of Europe

    The list goes on.




    Hmmm you're right. It appears to be 20k. My mistake.



    Purely circumstantial. Again, like crimes, people don't really have a habit of committing suicide with a semi-auto rifle.



    So basically, some people will continue to commit crimes and innocent people are now equipped to defend themselves? That's a win/win. I would rather a criminal blown away than an innocent person. I'm not sure how you can say "oh well" to something like that, unless you're just so unbelievably against guns you simply don't care what the facts are surrounding them. You simply want them gone.

    ----------

    Stupidity is rarely a disqualifier for anything in life.
     
  23. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    I don't understand how you are reading the graphs? All of these graphs show a major decrease after the banning of firearms. Obviously, it takes a long time for it to affect the numbers significantly, but that does not necessarily suggest that the bans had no affect.

    Actually, you could argue quite the opposite.

    Ex:

    Many guns were still floating around after the ban because criminals weren't fighting to the front of the line to give them up. As time continues, guns get used in crimes, and have since been confiscated and disposed of.

    In fact, I think this argument is more plausible than, "people just started getting along."

    Now, imagine this scenario on a much larger scale, in a country that holds guns sacred... would it work the same? I doubt it. If there were only a way to simulate this hypothesis... C'mon time travel!:p
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    thank God :)
     

Share This Page