Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It is safe to assume though, that if none of them were carrying guns, nobody would have been killed.

The real problem, as I see it, is that Americans simply love their guns. Any suggestion that an armed population is not a good thing, disappears into what must be black hole in the American psyche where no logic and reasoning exist. It also seems to me, after reading this thread, that some individuls also love the idea of killing. One poster actually described the Ohio shooting as "a thing of beauty". Very scary.

It is a tragedy that the majority of Americans are incapable of - or more likely not willing to - learn from other civilized countries in the world. Many Amercan lives have been lost, and many more will be lost because of it.

We will never see America without guns! Even if the govt enacts aggresive gun laws the criminals will still gain access and law abiding citizens will keep or find them as well.

It is a over generalization to say those that like their guns covet killing. As a ccw holder I take the responsibility very seriously and would avoid using deadly force at all cost. If I was ever forced to defend myself my heart would be heavy for the consequence that would result.

Had that been me I would not have allowed the kid to rob me and all attempts would have been made to avoid the use of deadly force. If however he went for his gun sadly he wold have been toast!

a reply to: sirlancelot

We will never see America without guns

Dear God I hope not:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner, and Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

a reply to: NavyDoc

A little anecdote: we used to have conscription in our country. So my father had to join the army as an 18 year old. He was given a rifle and they tested his shooting abilities one day at the shooting range. He had to lie down in the mud and then aim at the target and shoot. Which he did. Well, he hit bulls eye - of the target two lanes to the right... and almost killed the sarge there who'd been busy checking how he had done.

So, don't give me a gun. I'm genetically impaired. When I'm attacked, I'll run.

But I'd make a great General, come to think of it. "Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died..."

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

A little anecdote: we used to have conscription in our country. So my father had to join the army as an 18 year old. He was given a rifle and they tested his shooting abilities one day at the shooting range. He had to lie down in the mud and then aim at the target and shoot. Which he did. Well, he hit bulls eye - of the target two lanes to the right... and almost killed the sarge there who'd been busy checking how he had done.

So, don't give me a gun. I'm genetically impaired. When I'm attacked, I'll run.

But I'd make a great General, come to think of it. "Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died..."

I was pretty decent shot when I was younger, could bullseye soda cans from about 20 yards with a decent pistol. Haven't shot in years though, and it ain't really like riding a bike. You lose all the small subtleties you learn eventually.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

A little anecdote: we used to have conscription in our country. So my father had to join the army as an 18 year old. He was given a rifle and they tested his shooting abilities one day at the shooting range. He had to lie down in the mud and then aim at the target and shoot. Which he did. Well, he hit bulls eye - of the target two lanes to the right... and almost killed the sarge there who'd been busy checking how he had done.

So, don't give me a gun. I'm genetically impaired. When I'm attacked, I'll run.

But I'd make a great General, come to think of it. "Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died..."

You'd make a fantastic general!

"Men, ATTACK! But don't hurt anyone.. Just try to, comply.. and see if they go away...!"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm quite curious if the police has issued a formal statement yet about the results of their investigations. Anybody knows? Can we actually be sure it was JJ that drew the gun? Or that it WAS a real gun? I know, it's what they guy at the press conference said. But do we know this to be a fact? Isn't an American citizen assumed to be Innocent until proven guility?

See, there have been some indications that it may not even have been a REAL gun. One of JJ's friends had a PELLET GUN. Maybe it was a pellet gun.

All in all, I'm very curious what actually happened there. It may shed another light on all this yet.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Yes, check a few pages back. The police announced no charges would be filed, and they recovered both the deceased's weapon and the victim's weapon. And that the two juvenile accomplices of the deceased had been apprehended.

Edit: Sorry, it was page 31:

Link

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

On the other hand, if one reads some of the postings in here, SUBTLETY is not what is required. Just a big gun and one shot roughly in the center of the potentially dead meat that once was a mothers son. Ah, shoganai.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

Sure, we're all "speculating", since none of us were present at the actual incident.. However, for the sake of critical and meaningful discussion speculation becomes natural to the progression of various angles on the topic...

Not all of us and some facts are immutable. The perpetrator displayed a firearm, demanded the victim's property and was subsequently shot. Anything other than that is assumptive.

"Why so serious..?"

I find this to be a very serious issue that easily spins out of control when people create false narratives based on personal preconceptions of how things may have occurred.

True, however the narrative was already painted rather sardonically through a multitude of media outlets before it even reached these forums... We're here to pick through the rubble...

btw, don't kid yourself, those "facts" are as speculative as the media transcripts that continually place freshly-bought Nike's at the centre of the altercation...

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
You'd make a fantastic general!

Not sure if I'm happy with that

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I know, but was that the result of the OFFICIAL investigation?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Soooooo, you state basically that you are a coward....and think that you have a say in US issues?? Where a lawful citizen, took lawful action, with a lawful firearm against someone attempting an unlawful act.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You're right, it can't be helped.

But people are trained to aim for center mass. I was, and I'm sure millions of gun owners were. Aiming for extremities is a dangerous play. One, you don't want your shot to miss it's target and go on to strike an innocent bystander. Two, hitting an extremity may only anger the person, or not effectively incapacitate them. Three, hitting a moving extremity is much more difficult that striking a relatively still center mass.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And aim is affected to a decent degree by the adrenaline surge.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I know, but was that the result of the OFFICIAL investigation?

As far as I know that's the latest details made known to the public by L.E.

a reply to: macman

There are many flavours of cowardness. Yes, when it comes to shooting a person - I'm a real coward. But I can make my point quite well - as you may have noticed - and I'm not afraid of making a point that is not popular. I don't howl with the wolves, I'm a sheep. Baaah.

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

btw, don't kid yourself, those "facts" are as speculative as the media transcripts that continually place freshly-bought Nike's at the centre of the altercation...

The footwear stopped being a contributing factor as soon as the perpetrator introduced a firearm into the equation.

The questions are; did the perpetrator have a firearm and did the perpetrator use said firearm in the commission of a crime? If the answer is 'yes' to both then there really should not be any other narrative regarding the crime open for discussion.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But people are trained to aim for center mass. I was, and I'm sure millions of gun owners were. Aiming for extremities is a dangerous play. One, you don't want your shot to miss it's target and go on to strike an innocent bystander. Two, hitting an extremity may only anger the person, or not effectively incapacitate them. Three, hitting a moving extremity is much more difficult that striking a relatively still center mass.

And shooting someone in the leg can easily lead to death as well.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

btw, don't kid yourself, those "facts" are as speculative as the media transcripts that continually place freshly-bought Nike's at the centre of the altercation...

The footwear stopped being a contributing factor as soon as the perpetrator introduced a firearm into the equation.

The questions are; did the perpetrator have a firearm and did the perpetrator use said firearm in the commission of a crime? If the answer is 'yes' to both then there really should not be any other narrative regarding the crime open for discussion.

Obviously the dynamic changed the minute a firearm was brandished (I agreed with that point earlier)... The sad fact is that a person died (and a person killed) over a new pair of sneakers,, forgive me if I can't help but taste the bitter irony in it all...

originally posted by: macman
Soooooo, you state basically that you are a coward....and think that you have a say in US issues?? Where a lawful citizen, took lawful action, with a lawful firearm against someone attempting an unlawful act.

Yes, I have a say in issues that are brought before us here. That's the whole point of having a forum.