Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A father who was trying to eat with his family at Burger King was able to defeat an armed robber by pulling his own weapon and shooting at him, Miami police said.
Read more: Burger King diner defeats would-be robber by shooting him - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean
From these same studies.
Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.
Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.
Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.
Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.
Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
And the jury will acquit. Who gives a shit.
Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
I think you need to review self defense laws, an eminent threat is required for justification. A retreating bad guy does not present an eminent threat. The good thing in most instances like this is there are surveillance tapes to prove what happened, but there are two sides of that coin and they could work against the shooter and demonstrate there was no eminent threat. If you carry concealed these are things you have to know.
I think you need to review self defense laws, an eminent threat is required for justification. A retreating bad guy does not present an eminent threat. The good thing in most instances like this is there are surveillance tapes to prove what happened, but there are two sides of that coin and they could work against the shooter and demonstrate there was no eminent threat. If you carry concealed these are things you have to know.
It's called Jury Nullification:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...ow-to-save-our-youngest-adult-generation.html
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...inline=1&ext=1365478485&hash=ASvuPkS8tBvWnD0_
Fuck those laws.
I hope you don't carry, your attitude could leave you very broke and likely in jail. Passion for an issue is one thing, lack of common sense can hurt the hell out of ya. Your little statement says you have the same respect for the law as the bad guy did, you might want to reconsider.
Now, Tiger...you don't know that the danger was over. The dude might have had a mind to turn around and fire a parting shot at some randomly chosen human target...just to hurt somebody. You never can tell...but if I'd had mine out and he didn't know it, I'd watch him like an eagle does a fish as he made his way to the truck. Then I'd shoot the truck. If he came out blazin', I'd double tap him dead. If they drove off and disappeared into the traffic...at least I would have marked the truck!Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
And the jury will acquit. Who gives a shit.
I think you need to review self defense laws, an eminent threat is required for justification. A retreating bad guy does not present an eminent threat. The good thing in most instances like this is there are surveillance tapes to prove what happened, but there are two sides of that coin and they could work against the shooter and demonstrate there was no eminent threat. If you carry concealed these are things you have to know.
Now, Tiger...you don't know that the danger was over. The dude might have had a mind to turn around and fire a parting shot at some randomly chosen human target...just to hurt somebody. You never can tell...but if I'd had mine out and he didn't know it, I'd watch him like an eagle does a fish as he made his way to the truck. Then I'd shoot the truck. If he came out blazin', I'd double tap him dead. If they drove off and disappeared into the traffic...at least I would have marked the truck!Being a CHL holder, I would have never taken that shot. The crook was exiting the premises so the danger had passed, the shooter will probably be successfully sued and could possibly face charges. This is based solely one the information in the article.
Cirrusly, if the citizen shot the perp in the back of the leg as the perp was leavin' the scene, the citizen is in deep shit.
I hope you don't carry, your attitude could leave you very broke and likely in jail. Passion for an issue is one thing, lack of common sense can hurt the hell out of ya. Your little statement says you have the same respect for the law as the bad guy did, you might want to reconsider.
I have no respect for unjust laws. You threatened the lives of a man and his children in a Burger King, and you're still in sight, you deserve to be shot. If I'm on the jury, its guaranteed to be a hung jury if not acquittal.
I hope you don't carry, your attitude could leave you very broke and likely in jail. Passion for an issue is one thing, lack of common sense can hurt the hell out of ya. Your little statement says you have the same respect for the law as the bad guy did, you might want to reconsider.
I have no respect for unjust laws. You threatened the lives of a man and his children in a Burger King, and you're still in sight, you deserve to be shot. If I'm on the jury, its guaranteed to be a hung jury if not acquittal.
You'd never survive the jury selection process. They'd weed you out quickly.
