Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,132 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,797,643
Pageviews Today: 2,389,343Threads Today: 581Posts Today: 11,094
07:44 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD

 
Sleeping Giant (OP)

User ID: 543618
United States
01/10/2013 08:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
Do they??

Or has this criminal been removed from the game? What would be the cost to you if you were the next target of opportunity for this criminal? What if he decided to put a round through you or someone you love??

Is it lost on you liberals that the criminal was armed?? he is an effing criminal & he was not obeying ANY laws!!

Let your heart bleed for the criminals, that will work for you until a criminal leaves you or someone you care about bleeding and/or dead.

 Quoting: Lady Jane Smith


Logic fail.

Has he been removed? No, probably not. Criminals don't get 'baptized by fire' If anything, the criminal is taught to not play nice next time.

It is MORE likely now that if he chooses to rob again that he will be more careful, use more force, maybe shoot first.

You say:
he was not obeying ANY laws!! Besides this being weak hyperbole, the FACT is he WAS OBEYING MANY LAWS, such as 'thou shalt not kill' re the bible and also a LAW. He robbed the guy, didn't kill, or even shoot anyone...EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A GUN. Even after he was shot he didn't shoot back when he could have. He was there to rob someone, that's it.

Like I said earlier, If I had a gun, I probably would do the same thing. I don't blame the dad, but the article does not prove or show that having a gun protected the dad, and really shows the opposite. He was robbed, his family was already put in danger, and by firing at a fleeing robber he put himself at more risk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


Oh, in that case, it's all good. He was only trying to rob someone...He was only trying to force someone else to give him their belongings at gun point.

Last Edited by Sleeping Giant on 01/10/2013 08:29 AM
The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. Romans 13:11

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew 10:22

Wake up, oh sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21427624
Canada
01/10/2013 08:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
Do they??

Or has this criminal been removed from the game? What would be the cost to you if you were the next target of opportunity for this criminal? What if he decided to put a round through you or someone you love??

Is it lost on you liberals that the criminal was armed?? he is an effing criminal & he was not obeying ANY laws!!

Let your heart bleed for the criminals, that will work for you until a criminal leaves you or someone you care about bleeding and/or dead.

 Quoting: Lady Jane Smith


Logic fail.

Has he been removed? No, probably not. Criminals don't get 'baptized by fire' If anything, the criminal is taught to not play nice next time.

It is MORE likely now that if he chooses to rob again that he will be more careful, use more force, maybe shoot first.

You say:
he was not obeying ANY laws!! Besides this being weak hyperbole, the FACT is he WAS OBEYING MANY LAWS, such as 'thou shalt not kill' re the bible and also a LAW. He robbed the guy, didn't kill, or even shoot anyone...EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A GUN. Even after he was shot he didn't shoot back when he could have. He was there to rob someone, that's it.

Like I said earlier, If I had a gun, I probably would do the same thing. I don't blame the dad, but the article does not prove or show that having a gun protected the dad, and really shows the opposite. He was robbed, his family was already put in danger, and by firing at a fleeing robber he put himself at more risk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


Oh, in that case, it's all good. He was only trying to rob someone...He was only trying to force someone else to give him their belongings at gun point.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument FAIL. nobody said it was 'all good'. Take your straw man and go f**k it up the A**.
Sleeping Giant (OP)

User ID: 543618
United States
01/10/2013 08:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
Do they??

Or has this criminal been removed from the game? What would be the cost to you if you were the next target of opportunity for this criminal? What if he decided to put a round through you or someone you love??

Is it lost on you liberals that the criminal was armed?? he is an effing criminal & he was not obeying ANY laws!!

Let your heart bleed for the criminals, that will work for you until a criminal leaves you or someone you care about bleeding and/or dead.

 Quoting: Lady Jane Smith


Logic fail.

Has he been removed? No, probably not. Criminals don't get 'baptized by fire' If anything, the criminal is taught to not play nice next time.

It is MORE likely now that if he chooses to rob again that he will be more careful, use more force, maybe shoot first.

You say:
he was not obeying ANY laws!! Besides this being weak hyperbole, the FACT is he WAS OBEYING MANY LAWS, such as 'thou shalt not kill' re the bible and also a LAW. He robbed the guy, didn't kill, or even shoot anyone...EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A GUN. Even after he was shot he didn't shoot back when he could have. He was there to rob someone, that's it.

Like I said earlier, If I had a gun, I probably would do the same thing. I don't blame the dad, but the article does not prove or show that having a gun protected the dad, and really shows the opposite. He was robbed, his family was already put in danger, and by firing at a fleeing robber he put himself at more risk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


Oh, in that case, it's all good. He was only trying to rob someone...He was only trying to force someone else to give him their belongings at gun point.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument FAIL. nobody said it was 'all good'. Take your straw man and go f**k it up the A**.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


You tried to justify his crime in your argument against guns. Why is it OK that the robber had a gun? Your whole argument is that the gun didn't help the victim, did it help the robber?
The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. Romans 13:11

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew 10:22

Wake up, oh sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21427624
Canada
01/10/2013 08:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
...


Logic fail.

Has he been removed? No, probably not. Criminals don't get 'baptized by fire' If anything, the criminal is taught to not play nice next time.

It is MORE likely now that if he chooses to rob again that he will be more careful, use more force, maybe shoot first.

You say:
he was not obeying ANY laws!! Besides this being weak hyperbole, the FACT is he WAS OBEYING MANY LAWS, such as 'thou shalt not kill' re the bible and also a LAW. He robbed the guy, didn't kill, or even shoot anyone...EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A GUN. Even after he was shot he didn't shoot back when he could have. He was there to rob someone, that's it.

Like I said earlier, If I had a gun, I probably would do the same thing. I don't blame the dad, but the article does not prove or show that having a gun protected the dad, and really shows the opposite. He was robbed, his family was already put in danger, and by firing at a fleeing robber he put himself at more risk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


Oh, in that case, it's all good. He was only trying to rob someone...He was only trying to force someone else to give him their belongings at gun point.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument FAIL. nobody said it was 'all good'. Take your straw man and go f**k it up the A**.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


You tried to justify his crime in your argument against guns. Why is it OK that the robber had a gun? Your whole argument is that the gun didn't help the victim, did it help the robber?
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument fail. I never tried to justify anything. My 2 points were:

1. This article does not show having a gun protected the dad
2. It did show that by firing at the robber that it increased the risk to the dad and family.

Jane whatever said that the criminal wasn't obeying ANY laws. In response, I said that the FACTS show that he obeyed many laws and was there to rob someone, not kill them. I never said the act was justified, good, or all right, just that that was what the robber was there doing. It was a response to a ridiculous statement.
Sleeping Giant (OP)

User ID: 543618
United States
01/10/2013 08:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
...


Oh, in that case, it's all good. He was only trying to rob someone...He was only trying to force someone else to give him their belongings at gun point.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument FAIL. nobody said it was 'all good'. Take your straw man and go f**k it up the A**.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


You tried to justify his crime in your argument against guns. Why is it OK that the robber had a gun? Your whole argument is that the gun didn't help the victim, did it help the robber?
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument fail. I never tried to justify anything. My 2 points were:

1. This article does not show having a gun protected the dad
2. It did show that by firing at the robber that it increased the risk to the dad and family.


Jane whatever said that the criminal wasn't obeying ANY laws. In response, I said that the FACTS show that he obeyed many laws and was there to rob someone, not kill them. I never said the act was justified, good, or all right, just that that was what the robber was there doing. It was a response to a ridiculous statement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


1. How do you know the robber didn't turn around with the intention of shooting at the father and child?

2. Again, how do you know the robber wasn't going to shoot? We weren't there, we could argue this all day. If the father was trained well enough (CCW in ohio is 10 hrs classroom time) to know when not to draw, chances are he isn't going to fire the weapon unless he thought a life was in danger. He very well could have decreased the risk by injuring the robber.
The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. Romans 13:11

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew 10:22

Wake up, oh sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21427624
Canada
01/10/2013 09:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
...


argument FAIL. nobody said it was 'all good'. Take your straw man and go f**k it up the A**.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


You tried to justify his crime in your argument against guns. Why is it OK that the robber had a gun? Your whole argument is that the gun didn't help the victim, did it help the robber?
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument fail. I never tried to justify anything. My 2 points were:

1. This article does not show having a gun protected the dad
2. It did show that by firing at the robber that it increased the risk to the dad and family.


Jane whatever said that the criminal wasn't obeying ANY laws. In response, I said that the FACTS show that he obeyed many laws and was there to rob someone, not kill them. I never said the act was justified, good, or all right, just that that was what the robber was there doing. It was a response to a ridiculous statement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


1. How do you know the robber didn't turn around with the intention of shooting at the father and child?

2. Again, how do you know the robber wasn't going to shoot? We weren't there, we could argue this all day. If the father was trained well enough (CCW in ohio is 10 hrs classroom time) to know when not to draw, chances are he isn't going to fire the weapon unless he thought a life was in danger. He very well could have decreased the risk by injuring the robber.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


I was going off the FACTS (as stated in the article). Of course we could go on with 'what if's' and maybe's and conjecture. That's what guntards like to fantasize about.

Your IFS and MAYBES could be right. MAYBE the guy was going to go next into a mall and kill 24 people. MAYBE he was going to use the money to go to college and then operate on poor people for free saving lives. MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE.

YOU can guess all you want. I was just commenting on the story at face value, and your link stinks. I am sure all the guntard choir come to your conclusions and thoughts, but if you look at the article objectively, you can see it doesn't.

Again, I would probably have done the same thing, but what happened does not help the guntard cause.
Chrit

User ID: 27088294
United States
01/10/2013 02:00 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OHIO: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY ITíS A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD
...


You tried to justify his crime in your argument against guns. Why is it OK that the robber had a gun? Your whole argument is that the gun didn't help the victim, did it help the robber?
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


argument fail. I never tried to justify anything. My 2 points were:

1. This article does not show having a gun protected the dad
2. It did show that by firing at the robber that it increased the risk to the dad and family.


Jane whatever said that the criminal wasn't obeying ANY laws. In response, I said that the FACTS show that he obeyed many laws and was there to rob someone, not kill them. I never said the act was justified, good, or all right, just that that was what the robber was there doing. It was a response to a ridiculous statement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624


1. How do you know the robber didn't turn around with the intention of shooting at the father and child?

2. Again, how do you know the robber wasn't going to shoot? We weren't there, we could argue this all day. If the father was trained well enough (CCW in ohio is 10 hrs classroom time) to know when not to draw, chances are he isn't going to fire the weapon unless he thought a life was in danger. He very well could have decreased the risk by injuring the robber.
 Quoting: Sleeping Giant


I was going off the FACTS (as stated in the article). Of course we could go on with 'what if's' and maybe's and conjecture. That's what guntards like to fantasize about.

Your IFS and MAYBES could be right. MAYBE the guy was going to go next into a mall and kill 24 people. MAYBE he was going to use the money to go to college and then operate on poor people for free saving lives. MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE.

YOU can guess all you want. I was just commenting on the story at face value, and your link stinks. I am sure all the guntard choir come to your conclusions and thoughts, but if you look at the article objectively, you can see it doesn't.

Again, I would probably have done the same thing, but what happened does not help the guntard cause.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21427624



What the guy did was not only stop the next robbery but most likely saved a life, that life may have been the next victim or the criminal himself who might not have survived the next attempt. When you point a gun it is to use it, just by raising the weapon it was an action. Cops would have pulled the trigger also.

When you point a gun at someone the person your pointing a weapon at has NO rights at that point. Remember the first rule with a gun never point it at something you do not intend to shoot period.


Just by pointing you CAN legally prove intent.

2903.21 No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other personís unborn, or a member of the other personís immediate family
I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw.

We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three.

News