Slarg232 wrote:
You know how we solve this problem?

Crossbows. Crossbows aren't guns, can be pre-loaded, and can pierce through a quite a bit of (Non-Military) armor.

And they are intimidating as feth.

Relapse wrote:
[quote=SilverMK2 596189 6854414 7315d838ce07cbd7aeef23c64148aeaf.jpg

I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid smeone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
What is important to remember is that no violent crime has ever happened in a place where there are firearms.

I can honsetly say I've never heard of a robbery at an M1 Tank firing range.

I've SEEN robberies on live/hot M1 firing ranges.

At Ft Hood there were some dudes in hopped up 4X4s that would cruise out onto a range and steal the generators that are used to power the target lift devices. The generators are only there when the ranges are in use. Crazy fethers would come zooming out of the impact area a couple of KMs down range, load up as you watched, then haul ass away. Range Control would shut down the range/declare a cease fire when they came zooming out. You were not allowed to engage them (yes, I asked for permission. I figured a 120mm SABOT through an engine block would put an end to that silliness, and a few hundred rounds of COAX zipping through the area would ensure no one tried to get away on foot.)

.....Andy Raymond, a shop owner in Maryland recently announced he intended to sell what he believed to be the nation's first smart gun. However, he has since been forced to back down after receiving death threats from gun rights activists....

 Frazzled wrote:
I guess they couldn't read the sign.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/nc-restaurant-posts-no-guns-sign-and-then-gets-robbed-at-gunpoint/

NC Restaurant Posts “No Guns” Sign and Then Gets Robbed at Gunpoint
May 21, 2014 by Guns 'n' Freedom 128 Comments


(Source: ABC11) Surveillance footage of “gun free zone” being robbed at gunpoint. Video below.
Follow Guns 'n' Freedom on Twitter and stay informed!
Even while Michale Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups celebrate their “victory” in getting Chipotle to ban guns from their stores, a story out of Durham, NC reminds us why these so called “gun free zones” are actually doing more harm than good.

At 9pm on Sunday night the “The Pit Authentic Barbecue” in Durham was robbed at gunpoint when 3 masked men entered the restaurant through the back door.

From abc11.com,

DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) –Police are searching for three suspects involved in an armed robbery at Durham’s newly-opened barbecue restaurant, The Pit, at 321 W. Geer Street.
Authorities said just before 9 p.m. Sunday, three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor.

The bandits assaulted two employees during the crime, but they were not seriously injured.

Thankfully, no one was seriously hurt or injured in this incident, but it’s no thanks to a sign on the window of the restaurant that clearly states no guns are allowed.
.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Really just wondering how common wearing body armor is and what the stance on wearing some is in the US. It seems like a logical follow-up to carrying a gun to me?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread..

Where did this notion that a victim can do no wrong come from? If someone tries to cross a street at 1am with all dark clothing on without looking both ways and gets hit is it really bad to look at that and say "Maybe he shouldn't have done those things that resulted in the accident he was a victim of"

Relapse wrote:

Sounds to me, going by your friends experience and the way you describe things, as an eastern style variation of the Bundy Ranch issue.People are pissed that their "land" is being taken over by outsiders and are going to take measures.

 CptJake wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.

By your logic we should take the guns away from cops too. They tend to shoot the wrong person quite a bit while trying to shoot a bad guy. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Rogue-Ex-Officer-Christopher-Dorner-Deadly-Force-Newspaper-Women-Delivery-Torrance-Shooting-243564431.html Wouldn't a bad guy getting away be better than people getting shot?

In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

But how common is it for British to police to open fire?

In short – very rare. Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan.

In the four years to 2012, armed officers officers opened fire 18 times - nine fatally. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.

The two fatalities in 2011/12 emerged from 12,550 operations during the same period, in which firearms officers were on the scene and had been given authorisation to open fire, even though they did not, according to the latest Home Office stats.

The authorisation factor is important, because this is where British police differ to most of the rest of the world. Aside from Ireland, all major police forces in Europe routinely carry firearms, along with the US, Canada and Australia. New Zealand is another exception.

That does not mean that firearms officers are not called out onto the streets frequently – just that authorised firearms officers (AFOs) are specially trained and that the decision made to deploy them is made by an inspector or someone even more senior. Since 2004, the use of tasers has been preferred in official policy – again, only by trained officers.

When an officer does open fire, there’s an immediate investigation, with the IPCC involved. Some families of victims of police shootings, including the Duggan family, have claimed that the police officers involved are in fact treated with a lighter touch by investigators, including the IPCC – and the law. Something that the accused passionately dispute.

"The officers are subject to immense scrutiny and pressure is placed on them and their colleagues on how they explain it,” said Mark Williams, chairman of the PFOA. “The bottom line is, everything they did has to be justified by law.”

And to highlight how rare it is for a British police officer to actually open fire, Mr Williams told Channel 4 News: "I carried a firearm for five years in London, and I never had to fire it. Actually firing a weapon is very rare. The vast majority of them have never fired a weapon.

"No firearms officer wants to shoot someone. It’s a last resort."

He argues that British police officers have the best firearms training in Europe, precisely because the force is unarmed as a matter of course.

The wider picture
It is difficult to separate the number of police shootings from the use of firearms in the society that they're operating in: in a country where gun crime is rife and gun ownership laws more relaxed, police are more likely to be called to use their own firearms.

In the US for example, 410 people were killed by police officers in 2012: that's about 0.00013 per cent of the US population, compared to 0.0000035 per cent in the UK.

But the US has over four times as many homicides as the UK, according to the latest UN statistics, and there is a far stronger culture of gun ownership across the Atlantic.

Another country where police have been criticised for fatal shootings is South Africa, which is notorious for high rates of murder, assault and murder. Just last year, over 30 people died when police opened fire on miners who were on strike – an incident now known as the Marikana massacre.

A much-cited report from the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria found that police had shot dead 556 people in 2008/2009, the highest number in 12 years, and double the numbers four years ago.

That is 0.001 per cent of the population – far higher than the UK and the US.

To put this in context, the homicide rate in South Africa is also startling: 30.9 per 100,000 of population, compared to one, for the same number of people in England, and 4.7 in the US.

For a perhaps fairer comparison with the UK, Sweden has a more similar rate of homicide to the UK – 0.9 per 100,000 of the population. And its rate of police shooting is around the same: in the 18 years to July 2013, 18 people were shot dead by Swedish police.

The verdict
Police use of firearms – fatal or otherwise - is just one measure of police behaviour out of many. The increasing use of tasers, for example, comes with its own issues and the IPCC is investigating 12 taser-related incidents, including three fatalities.

Death in police custody is another factor measured by the IPCC – there were 15 fatalities in the year 2012/13. And Channel 4 News has reported on the use of restraining belts on detainees’ faces, by three police forces.

It is also worth noting that Home Office figures are for England and Wales only. In Northern Ireland, 30 civilian deaths at the hands of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) were recorded during the period known as "the Troubles" alone – a significant number for an area with a population of just 1.8 million.

But in terms of using firearms - and using them fatally - the figures suggest that British police are reluctant to open fire.

 Orlanth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.

By your logic we should take the guns away from cops too. They tend to shoot the wrong person quite a bit while trying to shoot a bad guy. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Rogue-Ex-Officer-Christopher-Dorner-Deadly-Force-Newspaper-Women-Delivery-Torrance-Shooting-243564431.html Wouldn't a bad guy getting away be better than people getting shot?

In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?

My logic states that cops and soldiers have different levels of training, and are accountable to a chain of command.
There are general consequences when a cop pulls a gun, the average hick doesn't except for the individual bullets.
Also a less armed police force is generally a good thing. For a start when the UK police uses guns they bypass small arms and go straight for assault rifles. Any level of gun threat has the immediate result in calling in the equaivalent of SWAT. The delimiter between no guns and lots of guns works better frankly.

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.

How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?

"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.

 Alex C wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.

How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?

"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.

Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Sounds to me, going by your friends experience and the way you describe things, as an eastern style variation of the Bundy Ranch issue.People are pissed that their "land" is being taken over by outsiders and are going to take measures.

But unlike the 'Bundy' situation, these people are being called the 'common criminals' that they are, will be arrested for illegally using a gun and will go to jail. Apparently you can only commit crimes, illegally use firearms in violent crimes if you are white. And also like the Bundy issue, there are legitimate and documented civil rights being infringed upon in the local community in regards to the police. It is 'the south' after all. There is still plenty of 'issues' with racism still going strong down there. But none of that excuses armed robbery, and these people will be caught, probably abused, get a crappy trial while being under represented and go to jail. Also, the Bundy 'lifestyle' of stealing from the american taxpayer, stealing public land and 'county supremacy' should be destroyed the same way any group of people who feel like it is 'ok' to rob businesses at gunpoint as a way of social/economic payback. Poisonous communities deserve to be done away with... but ideally society would have addressed the issue before it got bad opposed to letting things get bad. If you address the causes before the group becomes 'broken' and resorts to criminal action.

And Gentrification is an issue because they say 'we are making things nice, you don't have to leave... you are welcome to join us!' but then turn the area into 10$ beer, 30$ hamburgers and quadruple the rent.

This went down in DC fairly recently when 200k brownstones were being bought up in packs of 3, had walls knocked down and turned whole neighborhoods of low income city rentals into 3 million dollar houses. It literally turned a run-down 200k dump into a 1.1 million dollar house over night. And since a majority of the low-income people rent, the landlord is like 'oh, rent went from 800 a month to 2600 a month.' Then you get to the businesses. Now established owners can't afford to keep up and are forced out on that front as well. Landlords want whole blocks of night clubs or foodie gastropubs, that laundromat and bodega have got to go. But they don't evict them, rent goes up and the people are welcome to stay if they pay the obscene rent.

The little town (which is nothing but a train station) is currently going through this. It basically became a high latino population because it was cheap. They tore down 100% of the apartment buildings on main street and built condos which went from 500$ a month for a 1 bedroom to 1700$ a month for a 1 bedroom. My breakfast place is a divey little diner attached to a pharmacy. The landlord is trying to drive them out so he can turn the corner prime real estate into something else. Sure it is urban renewal, but it is jacking up prices simply because they can and 'who cares' what the residents think because they will be displaced before they can vote. Politicians love it because all the new people who move in are votes too. If you can win over a population, import a voter base.

Yeah, they are 'fixing it up' but also make it obscenely expensive to live there. and they say 'we have low income housing! you can get a 1 bedroom for 1800! you should be happy!' The issues now is, the people who have the lowest income now have to commute farther and have higher commuting expenses than the ones who don't. so someone making 6 figures can walk to work, but now that minimum wage worker has to move outside the city and drive in or take mass transit and triples his commuting time.

All it does is displace the poor and doesn't address core issues. There are ways to renew an urban setting without making it so expensive it has close to a 100% turn over rate. I don't call 3-5 years 'slow' at all, especially when they evict whole neighborhoods and rebuild. It doesn't mix classes, doesn't cause integration and it doesn't address issues for the population it displaces.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.

How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?

"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.

Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.

Except if you paid attention to the pattern of these robberies you would know that's not the case.

The robberies have used the back doors of these establishments and have allowed the employees to get the customers out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.

How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?

"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.

Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.

Except if you paid attention to the pattern of these robberies you would know that's not the case.

The robberies have used the back doors of these establishments and have allowed the employees to get the customers out.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

So what, man? What's to stop a copycat group springing up and wasting the patrons instead? Nothing. While this group may have not had any dangerous plans towards the patrons, that doesn't mean anyone walking in for a robbery would.

 Ouze wrote:
In the meantime, since this thread was posted and now, statistically another 96 armed robberies have occurred across the country, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of them did not have an anti-gun sticker present.

It's almost like the fact a firearm was theoretically available didn't act as some... magical charm that prevents all crime, or something. I guess I should make, like, 50 or 60 thread a day in the OT every time a good guy with a gun fails to deter criminality.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread kind of went to a weird place, right?

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.

 whembly wrote:
And no, we don't see folks wearing body armor unless it's security / police operators.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And no, we don't see folks wearing body armor unless it's security / police operators.

What? I wear armor all the time;



I just imagine the Imperial March playing every time I walk through a door.