So here’s a story of a guy successfuly defending himself during an armed robbery. (With video footage.)
What kills me is the uninformed response. ‘Can’t feel safe paying your phone bill’?
So ummm……They would feel “safer” if the guy at the store had been robbed and murdered??? REALLY!!! I think those tow had about five brain cells between them and of those five four were not talking to each other and the fifth didn’t care.
So I guess what I am hearing is they felt safer knowing that the neighborhood thugs had guns then they did knowing the guy at the store could fight back against an armed robber.
Interesting. Maybe I missed something, because I only read the article and didn’t watch the video, but… I didn’t perceive her comment to be specifically anti-gun. I mean, she could have been quoted saying the exact same thing whether the perp used a knife, stick, or even a potato. This lady’s comment is really just anti-crime. No?
The response to her comment here leads me to believe we’re becoming hypersensitive to any news involving the use of a gun. And rightly so… I’m not arguing we shouldn’t be, especially given all the negativity directed at law abiding gun owners of late. But I just want to remain cognizant of the fact the anti-gunners are successfully baiting us in and dragging us down to their level when we are “triggered” by anti-gun rhetoric where none exists.
I don’t see her comment as anti-crime at all. And not necessarily anti-gun specifically.
The part of the comment that I was referring to is that she thinks the guy was “paying his phone bill.” It’s the automatic assumption that if a someone is shot (or stabbed or beat with something) he was just trying to do something normal when it happened. The refusal to consider that the “victim” was committing a crime, in this case an armed robbery.
We hear this kind of stuff, ( he was such a good boy, or he was unarmed) all the time.
If It would have been a cop that shot this guy there may well have been a riot.
I’m waiting to see what happens to the store employee. Will he face civil charges cuz, ‘well he never actually shot at you or ‘it was only a toy gun’?
Ah, okay… I follow you now. Context is everything. See, I took her comment as being from her own personal viewpoint and the fact there was a robbery attempt at the phone store that put people in the community in harms way. In other words, she’s concerned about paying her own phone bill because this type crime is happening in her community. But if her comment is truly from the viewpoint of the perp as you suggest, well then… she’s just a straight up idiot.
This was bugging me so I reread the article and then watched the video. I’m convinced she’s just commenting on the act of robbery (the crime) and nothing more. She (and her husband) -at least to me- seemed to be concerned about armed robbery happening in their community so close to their home. Neither mentions the perp or gun use by either him or the store clerk at all.
I do see and respect the alternative point of view you offered on this @mquinn55, but am just not reading that much into it.