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

No.. He had a gun to protect himself and he sure did that. If he would have struggled with the crook before he ran away then he would have been putting his child in danger. I'm going to go ahead and say that he wasn't worried about the money in that situation ... After being shot, I can bet that the robber will (most likely) not do it again. And if he does I hope he dies next time.

Pretty much captures what was on my mind when I read the article..

Of course I wasn't in his situation but first thought is that the cowboy awoke thinking he had his chance....

typical

You too?? Come on man.. What would you do if an armed man broke into your house, and you had your gun ready and your children were home? Not shoot him because your children are there and take the chance of him shooting them?? I dont know where the baby was (and neither do you) but I'm going to go ahead and say that the baby was not in the firing line.

Last time that happened I asked the gentlemen to leave as he was looking for food and meant no harm.

The baby was on his arm...

I thought maybe you actually could articulate a real thought .. but i should have figured you were another troll..

We're not all killers and remember to be forgiving and merciful.

Perhaps your intelligence prevents you from understanding my approach but it doesn't mean you have to become rude and start calling names.

I know you're keeping it real, but you just made us look bad was that your aim???

He would be in trouble if he shot the negro in the back.

I'm just calling a spade a spade, if you are one that's not my fault.

No, he was a n****r.

He complied with the scum bags demands, he handed over his wallet. It was only after the robber ran and turned around and pointed his gun at him that he shot him.

I know right......lol

Your av says it all.

Sadly next time the robber will probably know to shoot first!


Pretty sure if anyone tried that in the UK it would be considered attempted murder - they would be in prison for disproportionate use of force, plus footing a lifetime of medical bills.

guntards once again post links to 'proof' that owning a gun is great and 'protects you' and then they can't even read the fucking story.

Here are some FACTS as written in the story

1. The dad had a gun ---- but was still robbed. The gun did not 'protect him'. Having a gun did not protect him.

2. The robber could have shot the dad at any given time during the robbery but did not. The dad was in jeopardy of being robbed,but was not in jeopardy of being shot. Y'all watch too many movies where the 'bad guy' always waits that extra moment for the good guy to win. REAL LIFE doesn't work that way. If the robber had intended to shoot the dad he would shoot first, then take the money.

3. From the article the dad shot the criminal as he was RUNNING AWAY. It was over, done, finished. He was robbed, the guy was running away. The gun didn't protect him. The robber never shot at him, and the guy was robbed. How's that protection?

The suspect took Smith's money and started to flee the scene as he pointed the gun back at Smith and his child.

As for conjecture, I would make an educated guess that this gun toting turd got robbed, shat his pants, gave up the money. THEN when the robber started walk/run away, the dad, in a fit of anger or retaliation (understandable in my opinion) pulled out his gun and fired on the criminal. While I understand the dad's position and if I had a gun I would probably do the same thing BUT...it really seems...

Having a GUN did not protect the dad or child at all.

Having a GUN could have been harmful to him and his family if he had shot and killed a person who was fleeing from him. and would have been at the mercy of the law and courts. At the very least it would have taken years of court appearances etc.

To me, this article does NOT come close to proving that having a gun

a) deterred the criminal

or

b) protected the dad and his family.

GUN CONTROL OF ANY KIND.....I will not comply...

Well analyzed. May I add that he.

a) By drawing his gun put his child in jeopardy opening the risk the perp would return fire.
b) The fact that the perp was injured most likely increases the cost on society and was not needed to prevent anything.

Seems guns tend to make things worse don't they?

ARM CHAIR IDIOT....easy for you to say in your world....but the real world is a nasty place.....yes he got robbed....but he did not have to sit there as a whimpering victim....he was able to send a message more powerful than his weapon.....do not mess with anyone, have respect for all and this kind of thing will become a thing of the past.....LOL

edit for spelling

Last Edited by CtYankee on 01/10/2013 08:09 AM

The only thing that prevented the father from fighting back at the onset was the fact that he was CARRYING his baby in a child carrier!! He feared due to the proximity of the child to the armed criminal.

I only regret that the round did not hit the criminal between the eyes.

Ahhhhh, finaly got to say what you've been jonesing to say. White people would never commit a crime. Whew!

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.



Last Edited by LJS on 01/10/2013 08:15 AM

Can I remind you that the US is NOT the real world but a twisted fantasy or corporations where you sir are the product.

As for the real world.. the most powerful message is forgiveness not shooting a man in the back cause of your instincts..

Great find OP!

so now you guntards are saying that guns are not for protection but to send messages?

I think if I was a criminal and desperate and I had a gun, and I though YOU had a gun, but I was still going to rob you, rather than be 'deterred' I would probably sneak up behind you and blow your fucking brains out.

If the 'message' is 'next time you rob someone he might have a gun' I think that if I was intent on robbing someone, shooting them would be the logical conclusion.

Guntards - where logic and reality clash with masturbatory thoughts of heroism

For the criminals yes it seems so.

Statistically this criminal will go on but now shoot BEFORE he robs...

How naive to believe he will change his ways cause he got shot. US prisons are full to the roof cause of their insane 3 strikes your out..

In your world that works.. reality shows criminals only harden..

Liberal...democrat. Keep your programmed terms to yourself I never voted not can I be placed in a box.

What if, what if.. try not to comment from emotion but rather look at the facts.

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.