We need more people like this:

[Stopper]

Stop reading ditzy young American students' blogs. Or you'll fill your head with drivel like that.

Maybe you should think these comments through before you start throwing them about.

I shouldn't have flamed you, no. I don't normally, but you really did take 3 minutes of my dinner hour away.

But please, don't advise me on "thinking comments through" before "I start throwing them about", when that is precisely all you have done so far in this thread. If you make what looks like a silly unfounded assertion, then have some evidence to back it up.

So we should have fewer people willing to defend themselves and/or others from violence?

Yes. I believe that protection from violence is primarily the responsibility of the government. In the last resort, people do have the right to defend themselves, but it certainly shouldn't be encouraged by lionizing people who shoot potential robbers, particularly when we don't know exactly what happened.

If you try to encourage a society where everyone has primary responsibility to defend themselves, then you will end up with a free-for-all.

If he rid the world of this scumbag with a knife instead of a firearm, would that make a difference?

What I was hinting was that a combination of a society where people all feel that they have to defend themselves, plus a society awash with guns, will just end up with a higher overall level of murder and gun killings. The US has far and away the highest gun killing rate in the developed world, and this attitude of encouraging people to blow robbers away doesn't strike me as helping the problem.

[Iz Man]

So we should have fewer people willing to defend themselves and/or others from violence?

Yes. I believe that protection from violence is primarily the responsibility of the government. In the last resort, people do have the right to defend themselves, but it certainly shouldn't be encouraged by lionizing people who shoot potential robbers, particularly when we don't know exactly what happened.

Violent people exist in every society. The government cannot (and should not) be everywhere. You are propagating cowardice & laziness. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Where no one gives a shit about the health & welfare of others? "Oh, don't worry about that mugging over there, the government will step in..........sometime"
So we can draw the parallel that we should not help people in need either. It's good that 5 people walked over the stabbing victim in the other thread because the government should take care of her.
Was this not a "last resort"? This was no "potential robbery". The scumbag had a gun pulled out and was robbing the store!
We know exactly what happened. Two scumbags committed armed robbery, and during the commission of said robbery, one was shot dead.

If you try to encourage a society where everyone has primary responsibility to defend themselves, then you will end up with a free-for-all.

No. You end up with a safer society, otherwise scumbag thugs like these two will know they can commit violent crimes because everyone will just cower in fear and wait for the savior gov't to come save them. So we should not defend ourselves? NUTS!
If you were walking down the street and saw a woman being assaulted in an alley, you wouldn't help, would you? I'm sure the weak & defenseless in your neighborhood are proud to have you as a fellow citizen.

If he rid the world of this scumbag with a knife instead of a firearm, would that make a difference?

What I was hinting was that a combination of a society where people all feel that they have to defend themselves, plus a society awash with guns, will just end up with a higher overall level of murder and gun killings. The US has far and away the highest gun killing rate in the developed world, and this attitude of encouraging people to blow robbers away doesn't strike me as helping the problem.

I don't agree, personally I think your attitude towards this is cowardly.
So answer me this:
What should have this man done?

[Bertros Bertros]

So you do consider capital punishment a suitable penatly for armed robbery, Iz Man?

Feeling the need to carry a gun to assuage your fear of the bad guys does not make you courageous, it makes you scared. The marine, presumably trained like yourself to be an excellent marksman with a cool head in a life threatening situation chose to shoot dead a man who was committing a robbery. If anything I see this as the cowardly option. Would not a braver man have disabled the robber and left the courts to see to his punishment. To shoot the man dead, presumably because he was scared of the reprisal if he didnt go the whole way strikes me as a little yellow bellied really, unless of course he was just missing the thrill of the kill since he finished active service in line with the arguments presented by Dave Grossman.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting they wouldn't step in if they saw a granny being mugged on the streets, I sure know if I did I would try to stop it. But then I could do so fairly sure that I'm not about to be shot, not the same for you. I'm not a coward and I'm not scared of guns, I'm concerned by the proliferation of gun culture and I don't see joe public being armed to the teeth as a way of mitigating the danger. Ultimately I'm not criticising the marine, or even you, but the second amendment which has led to the horrible dillemma your society faces over gun crime.

Oh and yes my statement was very immature, that was its intention, surely you can see that?

And yes excellent post meggy

[Iz Man]

So you do consider capital punishment a suitable penatly for armed robbery, Iz Man?

Let me repeat:
Capital punishment for armed robbery. No.
Deadly force authorized during the commission of an armed robbery. Yes.

Feeling the need to carry a gun to assuage your fear of the bad guys does not make you courageous, it makes you scared. The marine, presumably trained like yourself to be an excellent marksman with a cool head in a life threatening situation chose to shoot dead a man who was committing a robbery. If anything I see this as the cowardly option. Would not a braver man have disabled the robber and left the courts to see to his punishment. To shoot the man dead, presumably because he was scared of the reprisal if he didnt go the whole way strikes me as a little yellow bellied really, unless of course he was just missing the thrill of the kill since he finished active service in line with the arguments presented by Dave Grossman.

I'm sensing sarcasm, and I hope its there.
The marine chose to defend himself and the other patrons and employees in the Subway.
I believe I remember you saying you were trained in the use of firearms. If that is correct, you would know that you never shoot to maim, or disable. The police & military don't do that. You shoot to kill. The premise being an armed, albeit wounded, assailant can still shoot back.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting they wouldn't step in if they saw a granny being mugged on the streets, I sure know if I did I would try to stop it. But then I could do so fairly sure that I'm not about to be shot, not the same for you.

On the contrary, that is exactly what Stopper is suggesting, that the all powerful, almighty government should protect us all. Which is true to an extent, but not at the cost of having citizens run for cover at the first sight of a crime being committed.

I'm not a coward and I'm not scared of guns, I'm concerned by the proliferation of gun culture and I don't see joe public being armed to the teeth as a way of mitigating the danger. Ultimately I'm not criticising the marine, or even you, but the second amendment which has led to the horrible dillemma your society faces over gun crime.

I'm not asserting that you are a coward. I'm glad to hear you would step in to help granny. Hopefully you live near Stopper as he apparently would not.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on our 2nd Amendment, and on gun ownership in general. We would not find common ground on that issue. I respect your beliefs on the subject, however, it is not what this thread is about IMO.
I see what the marine did as honorable. He protected himself and everyone else who was in the shop. The 2nd thug was armed as well, he fled because he knew that he chose to rob the wrong place at the wrong time. He ran (even though armed) because of the exact reason you stated above. He had a gun because he was scared that the unarmed (his mistake) employees and patrons might fight back if he himself didn't have a gun. When the odds became even (his victim being armed, that is), the coward ran.
I pose the same question I did earlier: If the marine had killed the thug with a knife, does it change the topic?
I don't think so. The premise is the same.
If you have the means and the opportunity to stop violence against your fellow man, then you should try to stop it.
It's the right thing to do.
This man is a hero.

[Stopper]

I don't have the time tonight to reply fully, but I will address those barbs at me in your last post:

On the contrary, that is exactly what Stopper is suggesting, that the all powerful, almighty government should protect us all. Which is true to an extent, but not at the cost of having citizens run for cover at the first sight of a crime being committed.

I'm glad to see that you do indeed accept that the government should protect us all, to an extent. But I didn't suggest that citizens should run for cover at the first sight of a crime being committed. I wouldn't suggest that decent government, at any level, is something that can function without the co-operation of its citizens. In fact, it just can't at all. In the case of a crime being committed, it would generally mean calling the police.

I'm not asserting that you are a coward. I'm glad to hear you would step in to help granny. Hopefully you live near Stopper as he apparently would not.

You didn't get that from anything I said. It's pretty cheap to suggest that I'm a coward, and it would be cheap of me to retort, so I won't bother.

If you think that encouraging heroism amongst people, coming out blazing with their guns, is a good idea, you're seriously mistaken, Iz Man. Even if this Lovell - who appears to have been an elite Marine - turns out to have acted after absolute provocation, and there was nothing else he could do (and yes, I realise you can only shoot to kill), I don't know why you think encouraging this in the general population is a good idea. It should be obvious to you from this thread that everyone has their own set of morals. I'm quite sure you can think of a few people who you think definitely shouldn't be deciding whether they should kill in a situation like this.

[Riao]

Thank God there are still people like him willing to use the rights given to him by the constitution. Don't think that the next group of flunkies in that area wanting to rob someplace won't be thinking of the consequence that befell the two robbers.

Luns, I am about to open a BIG can of worms here... I have looked around these forums somewhat and have seen quite a few of your posts.. enough to know that you are a Christian.

Please don't take what I am about to say in a harsh way. I ask in all innocence. I am not Christian and ask out of simple curiosity. Perhaps this is more than what this thread is intended to be, in which case please PM me and we discuss it elsewhere.

It seems to me that the Christian point of view SHOULD be to preserve all life, no matter what the circumstance. Never mind the 10 commandments, but when asked of Jesus what the most important commandment is, he responded "love thy neighbour. If you follow this one commandment, all the others will fall into place." <loosely quoted> So then, how is pulling a weapon on anyone "loving thy neighbour?" In fact, if you venture into the self-defense argument, there is the turning of the cheek which Jesus commanded you do if someone strike you: If someone strikes your left cheek, present to him the right to strike that too. Your statement does not follow these doctrines; in fact it contradicts them.

Again, I do not mean to come off as offensive; I ask out of curiosity. This stems from watching the republicans of the US always declaring war and bombing nations, yet preaching as if from the moral Christian right. It's very confusing to the average bystander.

[luns101]

What I find really striking, and I'm not saying this simply to try and get a cheap shot in at Christians, is OnlyAmbrose's and luns101's attitude towards this. I can accept that a practicing Christian might say killing in the way of self-defence could be acceptable, but neither of you has even expressed the slightest bit of regret that a human being - one presumably capable of being "saved" - got killed in this incident.

But I'm not asking for you to endorse or understand my position on it.

[Neutrino]

I'm sensing sarcasm, and I hope its there.
The marine chose to defend himself and the other patrons and employees in the Subway.
I believe I remember you saying you were trained in the use of firearms. If that is correct, you would know that you never shoot to maim, or disable. The police & military don't do that. You shoot to kill. The premise being an armed, albeit wounded, assailant can still shoot back.

Police shoot to kill? I was under the impression that they were instructed to shoot to wound if at all possible. If they wanted to shoot to kill, then why are police officers armed with pathetic little pistols? It'd be a lot safer for the police officers if they were all armed with heavy ordinance for their day-to-day work.

[Stopper]

What I find really striking, and I'm not saying this simply to try and get a cheap shot in at Christians, is OnlyAmbrose's and luns101's attitude towards this. I can accept that a practicing Christian might say killing in the way of self-defence could be acceptable, but neither of you has even expressed the slightest bit of regret that a human being - one presumably capable of being "saved" - got killed in this incident.

But I'm not asking for you to endorse or understand my position on it.

Indeed, you haven't explicitly asked us to do either of these things. But I did imply that I couldn't understand your position on this. It's surprising that the secular Second Amendment seemed to be more important to you than what are generally perceived as God's teachings.

Anyway, Riao has expressed the same confusion, but in much more detail.

[OnlyAmbrose]

If you don't intend to cause harm DON'T BRANDISH A WEAPON.

It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is.

I wouldn't call it a civic duty. Some people have the ability to kill, and others don't.

I highly recommend a book written by an army Lt. Colonel entitled "On Killing". There's some fascinating information on just how seldom soldiers in past wars actually aimed to kill their enemies, or actually fired period. Great book, good read, very objective.

Thats the point exactly, not everyone who has a weapon is a killer especially when you live in a society where it is not only permissible and glorified, but considered your God given right to carry a weapon.

There is absolutely nothing to be admired in having the ability to kill.

Firstly, yes, not everyone who carries a weapon has the ability to actually use it. HOWEVER, someone who has a gun is someone who COULD use it, and if that person is robbing a store or whatever, there's a good chance that that person damn well MIGHT use it.

The marine just wasn't willing to play a loaded game of Russian roulette with innocent people's lives, so he shot the guy who was threatening them.

And I'm not saying that there is anything admirable about the ability to kill. Like I said, read On Killing. You won't disagree with it in the least.

What I find really striking, and I'm not saying this simply to try and get a cheap shot in at Christians, is OnlyAmbrose's and luns101's attitude towards this. I can accept that a practicing Christian might say killing in the way of self-defence could be acceptable, but neither of you has even expressed the slightest bit of regret that a human being - one presumably capable of being "saved" - got killed in this incident.

It's a valid point you bring up.

Best answer I can give you is this. No I don't really feel remorse. Hearing about a bad guy getting capped gives me about the same amount of remorse as that my dear great great aunt Susan's second cousin eight times removed died in a car accident.

I didn't know the guy, and from what I hear he had it coming.

Should I feel sorry that this guy died prematurely? Yeah, I guess, but if we felt sorry about every person who died before their time, we'd be pretty depressed wouldn't we? It doesn't help our human minds try to feel pity for this guy when he was brandishing a weapon at innocents.

Anyways, here's the best answer I can give you- I hope for everyone's salvation. I hope this guy was off his mental rocker or somehow unaware of what he was doing so that God may have mercy on his soul. And it is sad that he put himself in a situation where he had to be killed.

But does that mean I don't think the Marine should have shot? Heck no! He shot to save his own life as well as that of those around him. There is no wrong in that.

[heavycola]

If you don't intend to cause harm DON'T BRANDISH A WEAPON.

It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is.

I wouldn't call it a civic duty. Some people have the ability to kill, and others don't.

I highly recommend a book written by an army Lt. Colonel entitled "On Killing". There's some fascinating information on just how seldom soldiers in past wars actually aimed to kill their enemies, or actually fired period. Great book, good read, very objective.

Thats the point exactly, not everyone who has a weapon is a killer especially when you live in a society where it is not only permissible and glorified, but considered your God given right to carry a weapon.

There is absolutely nothing to be admired in having the ability to kill.

Firstly, yes, not everyone who carries a weapon has the ability to actually use it. HOWEVER, someone who has a gun is someone who COULD use it, and if that person is robbing a store or whatever, there's a good chance that that person damn well MIGHT use it.

The marine just wasn't willing to play a loaded game of Russian roulette with innocent people's lives, so he shot the guy who was threatening them.

And I'm not saying that there is anything admirable about the ability to kill. Like I said, read On Killing. You won't disagree with it in the least.

What I find really striking, and I'm not saying this simply to try and get a cheap shot in at Christians, is OnlyAmbrose's and luns101's attitude towards this. I can accept that a practicing Christian might say killing in the way of self-defence could be acceptable, but neither of you has even expressed the slightest bit of regret that a human being - one presumably capable of being "saved" - got killed in this incident.

It's a valid point you bring up.

Best answer I can give you is this. No I don't really feel remorse. Hearing about a bad guy getting capped gives me about the same amount of remorse as that my dear great great aunt Susan's second cousin eight times removed died in a car accident.

I didn't know the guy, and from what I hear he had it coming.

I don't think anyone is going to shed tears over this dead guy, but that's a world away from whooping for joy to hear that someone was shot dead. It's weird and a little bloodthirsty.

[luns101]

Indeed, you haven't explicitly asked us to do either of these things. But I did imply that I couldn't understand your position on this. It's surprising that the secular Second Amendment seemed to be more important to you than what are generally perceived as God's teachings.

...and it's been my experience in discussing things with atheists here that it it impossible to have them understand my position on things. I'm simply putting it out there.

Since I adhere to the Bible and believe it is the Word of God, and you obviously reject that...how could you possibly understand how I interpret matters and relate them to the society in which I live? Of course I could attempt to do it, but it's been my experience that those points are usually discarded, regardless of how they are articulated.

Have I correctly reflected your position, Stopper? My understanding is that you do not believe that God created the world, and that the Bible is not the source for all truth. If that's the case, how could you "understand" how I relate the scriptures to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution if you reject the very basis of my beliefs?

[Bertros Bertros]

Indeed, you haven't explicitly asked us to do either of these things. But I did imply that I couldn't understand your position on this. It's surprising that the secular Second Amendment seemed to be more important to you than what are generally perceived as God's teachings.

...and it's been my experience in discussing things with atheists here that it it impossible to have them understand my position on things. I'm simply putting it out there.

Since I adhere to the Bible and believe it is the Word of God, and you obviously reject that...how could you possibly understand how I interpret matters and relate them to the society in which I live? Of course I could attempt to do it, but it's been my experience that those points are usually discarded, regardless of how they are articulated.

Have I correctly reflected your position, Stopper? My understanding is that you do not believe that God created the world, and that the Bible is not the source for all truth. If that's the case, how could you "understand" how I relate the scriptures to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution if you reject the very basis of my beliefs?

I smell a cop out. Come on luns you can do better than, you don't want to understand me so I'm not going to bother. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I am disinterested in or would be unable to understand how you comfortably reconcile an awkward contradiction between the central doctrine of your faith and your belief in the second amendment.

[Iz Man]

I don't think anyone is going to shed tears over this dead guy, but that's a world away from whooping for joy to hear that someone was shot dead. It's weird and a little bloodthirsty.

I'm not whooping for joy that someone was shot dead. I'm whooping for joy that someone stood up to a couple of thugs and protected the innocent.
That being said, the thug's death was no great loss to the planet IMO.

[Iz Man]

Police shoot to kill? I was under the impression that they were instructed to shoot to wound if at all possible. If they wanted to shoot to kill, then why are police officers armed with pathetic little pistols? It'd be a lot safer for the police officers if they were all armed with heavy ordinance for their day-to-day work.

Yes, police shoot to kill, they do not shoot to disable or maim.
Most police carry a Glock-21. Its far from a "pathetic little pistol".
It fires a .45ACP round and has a magazine capacity of 10-13 rounds.
Big stopping power.
Most police also carry a 12 gauge shotgun in their vehicles loaded with 00 buck shot. Once again, far from pathetic.
The reason they shoot to kill (to reiterate what I said above) is that a wounded, armed assailant can still shoot back.

[Iz Man]

On the contrary, that is exactly what Stopper is suggesting, that the all powerful, almighty government should protect us all. Which is true to an extent, but not at the cost of having citizens run for cover at the first sight of a crime being committed.

In the case of a crime being committed, it would generally mean calling the police.

I'm not asserting that you are a coward. I'm glad to hear you would step in to help granny. Hopefully you live near Stopper as he apparently would not.

You didn't get that from anything I said. It's pretty cheap to suggest that I'm a coward, and it would be cheap of me to retort, so I won't bother.

Very well Stopper.
You come across granny getting assaulted. You have 4 choices:

1) Run away, hopefully the perpetrator doesn't see you.
2) Ignore the situation, its not your problem. Granny was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) Call the police, hopefully they'll get there in time.
4) Try to intervene and hopefully you save granny from immediate harm.

I know what I would do.
Do you?

[thatnerdyboy]

This might seem stupid, but has anyone ever bothered to find out whether the killers had weapons permits? I mean, it might put a new perspective on things if they had a permit too. It's unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

[Vincent M]

Guess who live in that town and county

me

[b.k. barunt]

When i lived in New Orleans, my wife thought she heard an intruder in the house and called me, then she called the police. I was halfway across the city at the time, but i got there in less than 15 minutes. When i got there, the police had just arrived. One was sitting in the car while the other was standing outside the picket fence hollering "is anybody home?". Call the police? I think not - the only thing you can count on them to do is bust people for smoking pot and give traffic tickets.

[Riao]

This might seem stupid, but has anyone ever bothered to find out whether the killers had weapons permits? I mean, it might put a new perspective on things if they had a permit too. It's unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

I think whether they had permits or not is irrelevant -- they were trying to rob the place after all.

[b.k. barunt]

This might seem stupid, but has anyone ever bothered to find out whether the killers had weapons permits? I mean, it might put a new perspective on things if they had a permit too. It's unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

Umm, permits for robbers? Your avatar is most appropriate. I can just hear the conversation now - "hey man, let's go take out that store on the corner". "Aw dude! I don't have my permit yet - we'll have to wait til next week".

[Iz Man]

When i lived in New Orleans, my wife thought she heard an intruder in the house and called me, then she called the police. I was halfway across the city at the time, but i got there in less than 15 minutes. When i got there, the police had just arrived. One was sitting in the car while the other was standing outside the picket fence hollering "is anybody home?". Call the police? I think not - the only thing you can count on them to do is bust people for smoking pot and give traffic tickets.

Partially agree with you here b.k.
I think a few bad apples in some police depts have given the lot of them a bad name. You can't deny its a tough job.
That being said, I do believe that there's a lot of wasted time on the part of police busting pot smokers, handing out BS tickets, and the like when they could be used more efficiently in fighting real crime.

[Iz Man]

This might seem stupid, but has anyone ever bothered to find out whether the killers had weapons permits? I mean, it might put a new perspective on things if they had a permit too. It's unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

Umm, permits for robbers? I can just hear the conversation now - "hey man, let's go take out that store on the corner". "Aw dude! I don't have my permit yet - we'll have to wait til next week".

Damn, stole my thunder....

[luns101]

I smell a cop out. Come on luns you can do better than, you don't want to understand me so I'm not going to bother. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I am disinterested in or would be unable to understand how you comfortably reconcile an awkward contradiction between the central doctrine of your faith and your belief in the second amendment.

Absolutely not, you would wait for a couple of posts before labeling me as someone who acts "obtuse". Let's just skip to that part right now, shall we?

[Vincent M]

Guess who live in that town and county

me

Seriously and to top it all off I know the chief of police