WW2 vet survived Nazi's only to be beaten to death by two teenagers

its pretty logical that if you rob someone who is likely armed and do it around others who are also likely armed, the chances of you ending up with a cap in your ass increases exponentially. so yeah, lesser chance you will try something like that

bixxby_sl said:

This would have never happened if he had shot himself when he turned 60

Click to expand...

Maester Chuk_sl said:

its pretty logical that if you rob someone who is likely armed and do it around others who are also likely armed, the chances of you ending up with a cap in your ass increases exponentially. so yeah, lesser chance you will try something like that

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what logical means.

Jait_sl said:

I'm picking on you, sir

But yes, some do just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFA7vxtWRG0

[

Click to expand...

I hope he went back to his seat and continued playing.

Those kids should be a given medals.

Erronius_sl said:

So all that people need to do is form armed gangs to roam around in? FANTASTIC

My issue with the entire"armed 'Murica"argument is that people tend to go the route of CCW almost exclusively, which coincidentally leaves would-be attackers not knowing that you are armed in the first place. CCW doesn't "prevent" crimes from occurring as such, but they sure as hell introduce a potential for someone getting shot and killed (you or them) into situations that normally don't result in fatalities or even serious injuries. And sure, a handgun isn't as bad (potentially) as a rifle or shotgun in close quarters, but most people aren't even trained in anything remotely similar to CQB scenarios, or if they do receive "training" it's only lightly touched on at best. Hell, I wouldn't trust most people with a firearm in the first place, but an 88 year old man trying to draw in close quarters against two hostile attackers?

Click to expand...

Ok now imagine if everyone is required by law to arm themselves whenever they leave their home. It's totally out there and well within the realm of "neva-eva-gunnahappen". But think about that from the point of view of criminals. Now there is no guess work, now they know that if they pull a firearm and try and force people to do anything, they are going to touch off a hailstorm. Armed criminals cease being a threat. Everyone else however, becomes more of a threat and 2nd degree murders would probably see a rise since access to firearms in any altercation is nearly instant. But... as a counter to that, everyone is probably going to be very polite to one another simply because they don't want to start a war.

Add a dash of regulation to that equation and you disallow certain individuals from gun ownership, (convicted criminals, migrant workers, mentally disabled) and disallow certain people from carrying a gun in public (anyone with impaired vision or other disability that would hinder their ability to use a firearm.)

It creates a weird space. You know everyone is carrying a gun. In time carrying a gun becomes ubiquitous. People don't focus on it, but everyone is aware of it. It takes the power away from people who arm themselves in today's society and removes that inequality of force.

In some alternate future I can imagine weapons, not guns, but non-lethal implements that can subdue a person (stunner/ tazer), being a required item for every person walking around. If someone flips their shit and gets violent you are required to try and tag them and hold them until law enforcement arrives.

Erronius_sl said:

So all that people need to do is form armed gangs to roam around in? FANTASTIC

My issue with the entire"armed 'Murica"argument is that people tend to go the route of CCW almost exclusively, which coincidentally leaves would-be attackers not knowing that you are armed in the first place. CCW doesn't "prevent" crimes from occurring as such, but they sure as hell introduce a potential for someone getting shot and killed (you or them) into situations that normally don't result in fatalities or even serious injuries. And sure, a handgun isn't as bad (potentially) as a rifle or shotgun in close quarters, but most people aren't even trained in anything remotely similar to CQB scenarios, or if they do receive "training" it's only lightly touched on at best. Hell, I wouldn't trust most people with a firearm in the first place, but an 88 year old man trying to draw in close quarters against two hostile attackers?

Click to expand...

Ok now imagine if everyone is required by law to arm themselves whenever they leave their home. It's totally out there and well within the realm of "neva-eva-gunnahappen". But think about that from the point of view of criminals. Now there is no guess work, now they know that if they pull a firearm and try and force people to do anything, they are going to touch off a hailstorm. Armed criminals cease being a threat. Everyone else however, becomes more of a threat and 2nd degree murders would probably see a rise since access to firearms in any altercation is nearly instant. But... as a counter to that, everyone is probably going to be very polite to one another simply because they don't want to start a war.

Add a dash of regulation to that equation and you disallow certain individuals from gun ownership, (convicted criminals, migrant workers, mentally disabled) and disallow certain people from carrying a gun in public (anyone with impaired vision or other disability that would hinder their ability to use a firearm.)

It creates a weird space. You know everyone is carrying a gun. In time carrying a gun becomes ubiquitous. People don't focus on it, but everyone is aware of it. It takes the power away from people who arm themselves in today's society and removes that inequality of force.

In some alternate future I can imagine weapons, not guns, but non-lethal implements that can subdue a person (stunner/ tazer), being a required item for every person walking around along with their I.D. If someone flips their shit and gets violent you are required to try and tag them and hold them until law enforcement arrives.

Nazis, not "Nazi's". I got tired of seeing the stupid title.

The other issue with Erronius's argument is saying that since the addition of the gun increases the chance of someone dying, it is a bad thing. Well, yes, it vastly increases the chance that the criminal doing an assault will die. That isn't a bug, thats a feature.

He could've shot himself at 60 and avoided this horrible end. Much more preferable way to go than a couple thugs doing it.

Somebody already made the joke man !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-himself.html

Hint: Fighting back made them kill him apparently.

Don't fight back from your attackers, let them do what they want - The more you know!

Can you guys imagine the media circus had these pieces of shit walked up on a CCW holder. Oh man I can see the salty facebook tears of injustice now! "These poor young kids just wanted to get some money for some Skittles and a Tea, and yeah they made a mistake, but they didn't deserve to get GUNNED DOWN!!!!"

Oh man.....

fanaskin_sl said:

yeahhhhh no, statistics and history are against you.

before the gun was even invented the murder rate was atleast 4x higher, why? without the GREAT EQUALIZER, the strong dominate the weak, history shows where ever guns became cheap and available to the common person, crime, especially violent crime, rape and murder declined dramatically.

you also provide nothing to say what else would have given the "old man" a better chance to live.

many people here are implying that "shorty" only had a fraction of a second to pull a gun, with no evidence, and somehow that makes their argument valid, but they fail to say what else would have given "shorty" a BETTER CHANCE at survival.

nothing guarantee's survival it's just about giving yourself the best chance at it.

Click to expand...

What may have given the old man a better chance of living is the assailants caring enough about theirowngoddamned lives to consider the results of their actions.

Angry and want to fuck someone up? Being bored? Those are emotional states I can understand. But being generally angry and so 'bored' that I would randomly beat someone to death, and never thinking about what might happen later on is mental. Sad, pointless waste of a life and we're all safer with these two psychos off the streets.

A 1st degree murder conviction could mean life without the possibility of parole, and I am in no way insinuating Demetrius Glenn should not be punished, but damn that is grim for a 16 year old.