Father Shoots Gunman Threatening Family in Texas Restaurant

[Vankrys]

Wealth income disparity is what drives crime, culture, etc among other things drive crime, not guns themselves, especially legally obtained ones. Someone who intends to use the gun illegally isn't going to go through a legal process to obtain it...

crime is not the same thing as gun violence. I agree with you on society problem, income disparity, racism, greed, hate, all are driving factors for crime. However, guns availability do contribute to make those crime actual gun crime.

Crime would exist without gun, but gun violence exists because of availability of guns. What go around, comes around as the idiom says.

[Elba]

Vigilante murders robber. Don't see what is happy about that.

Shooter should be in prison.

[Shadee]

One less scumbag on the street. The man should receive an award.

[Deleted]

God I hate these statistics, most of gun deaths are suicide and most gun crime is committed with the use of illegal guns...

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone has a gun in Switzerland yet they don't have a crime problem, second lowest homicide rate in Europe actually, the truth is that people who legally own guns is not the problem, the problem is the people who obtain them illegally, and even if you were to completely halt legal guns, criminals would have no problem obtaining them illegally.

But let's completely ignore this fact, because strict gun control has done wonders in Chicago.

Stop appealing to emotions and actually think about it..

First of all, only about 33% of all swiss citizens own a gun. But yes, they have a much better system than the US with very strict bakground checks etc.

Secondly, you're either an idiot or purposefully ignorant if you use Chicago as an argument against gun control. Of course gun controls in 1 city won't help if an entire country around that city allows anyone and everyone to get a gun free with their ice cream.

Thirdly, look at australia. That country has a culture very similar to America. They used to have massacres and high rates of gun related death.

"In the 18 years between 1979 and April 1996, Australia experienced 13 massacres (defined as five or more victims, not including the perpetrator) in which 104 people died. In the 21 years and five months since the Port Arthur massacre and the passage of the law reforms that followed swiftly afterwards, we have seen precisely none"

"Australia and the US share many cultural affinities. Firearm ownership is common here but is not unbridled as it is in the US. The US has 13 times Australia’s population, 134 times our total firearm death rate and 27 times our gun homicide rate."

"For every person shot in a mass killing, 139 others commit suicide or are murdered with guns in incidents in which fewer than five people died (most typically one or two). Not only did massacres stop but there was also significant change in the pre-existing downward trends for rates of total firearm deaths. From 1979 to 1996, the average rate of total firearm deaths was 3.6 per 100,000 population, whereas from 1997 to 2013 (after gun law reforms) the mean rate was 1.2 per 100,000 population.

Australia is a far safer place now than it was in the 1990s and in previous decades. The US seems determined to move in the opposite direction."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...0986317d2fa978

This is just hard evidence and numbers only a complete moron or a bought and paid for republican can argue against.

[Ghostpanther]

I am a huge proponent of not shooting to kill and you'll see my commentary on that in previous threads. That being said...first of all, we don't know if the man defending his family shot to kill or not. He could have accidentally hit an artery, who the fuck knows. We also don't know how many shots he took. Additionally, if you have a gun pointed at a man who has a gun pointed at your family, and you shoot in the leg, you are giving the robber an opportunity to retaliate, and someone else in that crowded restaurant might have gotten hurt. Trying to grab the gun would have likely been an even worse decision.

Really there are no best-case scenarios here, the robber should not have been a dumbass and tried to rob someone.

Yeah. We should never shoot to kill. We should shoot to stop the threat. Center mass, which just so happens to be the part of the body with some vital organs. What we should never do is shoot to wound. As you pointed out, that can get you or someone else killed if the target is also armed. But it is also a fact, most shootings do not end in death.

- - - Updated - - -

Good! Now we have 1 argument for guns.. Up against, how many was it that died from gun violence last year.. 300 000?

300,000? lol. Maybe if you count war zones such as Syria and Somali. Or the drug wars going on around the globe.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the better outcome between the two scenarios, the guy who killed two people with a knife and got to live, or the Las Vegas mass shooting?

I do not give 2 shits about statistics if I need to protect myself or family from a deadly threat. The Vegas shooting was caused by a lack of good security.

- - - Updated - - -

While i shed no tears for the robber, i question the father's decision as describe in the article. The situation could have had a much much worse ending. If i read right, the man shot the robber while he was point his gun toward the man's family.

What if the robber fired his weapon upon being shot, what would we said if the man's daughter head exploded as a result of her father's cowboy attitude? Is whatever cash he had really worth the risk, as slim it may be, to get your family shot dead?

If you are going to put yourself in a position of danger, if you are going to escalate the situation to a firefight, don't involve bystanders.

There has not been enough details to know when the father took his action. Maybe the robber looked away , or was distracted and the father took advantage of the opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

Vigilante murders robber. Don't see what is happy about that.

Shooter should be in prison.

Thankfully, you do not get to make the decision here when someone has committed a crime. So your opinion is worthless.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just hard evidence and numbers only a complete moron or a bought and paid for republican can argue against.

Nothing but Nation bashing here folks. Move along.

[Raelbo]

Happy ending? A person died/was shot.

Far more importantly though, no innocent people were harmed/killed.

[Casterbridge]

That 'person' ceased being a person the instant he decided to pull a gun on innocent people. Take your bleeding heart elsewhere.

OP - I think it's funny that this guy is being lauded as a hero, when I recall a similar incident not too long ago, past month or so maybe? Where a similar situation happened, but the father is being charged with murder. How fucking loopy our legal system is.

The thief was still a person.

Let me be clear I'm not going to criticize the father for the shooting, if he believed he and his family was in danger, which is more than a reasonable assumption when someone is robbing you at gunpoint, he was justified in using lethal force.

That being said a person did die here, the father has to deal with killing someone, and his children haven to deal with what they witnessed, we also have no clue why the would be thief ended up in the situation where he thought robbing people at gun point was what he needed to do, maybe he was a psychotic, maybe he was desperate, but regardless his life is over, that is not something to celebrate.

[Ghostpanther]

The thief was still a person.

Let me be clear I'm not going to criticize the father for the shooting, if he believed he and his family was in danger, which is more than a reasonable assumption when someone is robbing you at gunpoint, he was justified in using lethal force.

That being said a person did die here, the father has to deal with killing someone, and his children haven to deal with what they witnessed, we also have no clue why the would be thief ended up in the situation where he thought robbing people at gun point was what he needed to do, maybe he was a psychotic, maybe he was desperate, but regardless his life is over, that is not something to celebrate.

His death? Nope. But the survival of the family? Of course.

[Casterbridge]

His death? Nope. But the survival of the family? Of course.

Yes celebrating the family is unharmed is fine, however you've been reading the comments in this thread, there are people celebrating the death as well, that is not something that needs to be encouraged.

Course I also disagree with those who seem to think the father should be locked up for the shooting, unless the narrative is way off, he did nothing wrong. Though sadly he may find himself involved in a civil suit.

[Raelbo]

I do not give 2 shits about statistics if I need to protect myself or family from a deadly threat.

And therein lies your problem. Because you refuse to accept the facts and the rational conclusions on how best to protect yourself and your family, you advocate a strategy less likely to achieve that outcome.

The point these guys are making is that everyone would be safer if no one was allowed guns. But sadly a significant number of people believe that their guns will keep them safe, the nett result being a proliferation of guns which puts everyone at greater risk.

And sure, I can even accept that in a nation where there is such a proliferation of guns, that it isn't entirely irrational to want to be a gun owner yourself. But if gun owners had a more responsible collective attitude, then you'd be pushing to having a gun free society, so that you can de-escalate the problem that pushes you to feel you need to own a gun in the first place.

[Spiffums]

nah, I don't want the state wasting money like that, and i don't want to encourage random people killing criminals (who arent threatening you with a gun, anyways), as that I feel undermines our justice system and potentially causes a bigger public liability.

Undermines our justice system......you mean the legal system. There is no "justice" in it. If people didn't do stuff that gets them shot then no one would get shot.

[Casterbridge]

And therein lies your problem. Because you refuse to accept the facts and the rational conclusions on how best to protect yourself and your family, you advocate a strategy less likely to achieve that outcome.

The point these guys are making is that everyone would be safer if no one was allowed guns. But sadly a significant number of people believe that their guns will keep them safe, the nett result being a proliferation of guns which puts everyone at greater risk.

And sure, I can even accept that in a nation where there is such a proliferation of guns, that it isn't entirely irrational to want to be a gun owner yourself. But if gun owners had a more responsible collective attitude, then you'd be pushing to having a gun free society, so that you can de-escalate the problem that pushes you to feel you need to own a gun in the first place.

Here's the thing, in the US we are not going to ever get rid of guns, it's just far to ingrained, and to be honest a responsible person owning a gun shouldn't be an issue.

Of course the thing is since legal guns are so prolific over here, then that by extension means illegal guns are as well. Further complicating the mess is the fact that our own laws concerning gun ownership are poorly enforced and there is little to no requirements in being proficient in actually owning a gun.

So we have guns all over the country, legal and illegal, we have laws poorly enforced, and we have people who clearly have no business legally owning a gun having dozens.

And while I'm not for removal of everyone's guns, heck I own a couple, I do think something needs to be done to at least try fix some of the issues.

However thinking you are going to end up with a gun free America is a pipe dream it's not going to happen, certainly not any time soon, we can't even get in reasonable discussion about the gun laws we do have most of the time.

[Deleted]

He was only threatening! Hell he could have shot and robbed them - then at least he had a chance to survive. Is that the behavior you want to favor?

"threatened his family with a gun"

Is that the behavior you want to favor?

Yes.

If you go around threatening the lives of others, I hope yours gets taken the very second.

[Hottage]

A good guy with a gun actually stopped a bad guy with a gun for a change? Genuinely surprising news.

[Ghostpanther]

And therein lies your problem. Because you refuse to accept the facts and the rational conclusions on how best to protect yourself and your family, you advocate a strategy less likely to achieve that outcome.

The point these guys are making is that everyone would be safer if no one was allowed guns. But sadly a significant number of people believe that their guns will keep them safe, the nett result being a proliferation of guns which puts everyone at greater risk.

And sure, I can even accept that in a nation where there is such a proliferation of guns, that it isn't entirely irrational to want to be a gun owner yourself. But if gun owners had a more responsible collective attitude, then you'd be pushing to having a gun free society, so that you can de-escalate the problem that pushes you to feel you need to own a gun in the first place.

But those are not realistic goals here in the US. I accept having a firearm comes with some costs and risks. I also accept the fact we have a Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms for self protection. That is just the way it is here. I would not want to change having the right to protect myself with a item to help even out the odds.

[Deleted]

I wouldnt only shoot the robber if he ever threatened my loved ones; i would behead him with a spoon. The last thing you think in such situations are the consequences (there should be none, imo)

[Ghostpanther]

Yes celebrating the family is unharmed is fine, however you've been reading the comments in this thread, there are people celebrating the death as well, that is not something that needs to be encouraged.

Course I also disagree with those who seem to think the father should be locked up for the shooting, unless the narrative is way off, he did nothing wrong. Though sadly he may find himself involved in a civil suit.

It would be thrown out of court for being ridiculous. Down in Texas for sure.

I do agree with your points however.

[Raelbo]

Here's the thing, in the US we are not going to ever get rid of guns, it's just far to ingrained

I am not sure that I agree that it can't ever happen. It may take time, but it starts with a change in attitude and I can agree that as far as I can tell there is currently far too much hard-headedness to start.

and to be honest a responsible person owning a gun shouldn't be an issue.

True, but I would note that when most people don't even understand what it truly means to be a responsible gun owner, including law makers, you do have an issue, because most people who will/can claim to be responsible gun owners aren't really.

Of course the thing is since legal guns are so prolific over here, then that by extension means illegal guns are as well.

Exactly. Firstly, legal guns get stolen ie they provide the supply. Secondly the fact that criminal targets are likely to have guns provides the incentive for criminals to arm themselves ie they supply the demand.

Legal guns therefore push both supply of and demand for illegal guns.

However thinking you are going to end up with a gun free America is a pipe dream it's not going to happen, certainly not any time soon, we can't even get in reasonable discussion about the gun laws we do have most of the time.

I do realise it would take a lot to get there, but I don't believe it's impossible. Other countries have achieved it (eg Australia) but really, it starts with an acceptance that a gun rich society is a bad thing, and that, I would agree, is not a conversation that the USA is ready to have...yet.

If you ask me what I think it would take: Visionary leadership. Sadly the USA is led by people whose primary skillset is in understanding how to win votes and elections, but not how to serve the best, long-term interests of the nation.

[sarahtasher]

According to the resident keyboard warrior, the whole concept of trial and laws is a waste of time.

If someone that belongs to the supermen race of ''rulz Americanz'' (read : he have a big manly gun, which a chimpanzee could likely purchase in the US), he have the right of life and death over others. Cue to droning ''he should gut gud muney'' when a ''THUG'' (dog whistle numero 44567 to make all thought process stop, like ''illegal immigrant (1) is killed and why they considers Zimmermann as a rugged stallion.


(1)You don't know ? When you a big virile Glock in your hands, the Jesus-with-Gun that gunlickers worship give you vision and tell you if the Mexican guy ahead of you is an American citizen or not. I mean, that's what I guess it happens, because otherwise how to explain the usual suspects drooling over scenario of people using their guns to solve the illegal migration problem ? It certainly DOES NOT mean ''UR UR UR, MUH TAKE GUN AND MUH SHOOT RANDOM BRUWN PEOPLE IN DUH STREETS''

[Ethris]

I know it's EXTREMELY hard to fathom to internet tough guys, but in the real world, if someone prop a gun against your wife and ask for 20 dollars and you don't have the gun in hand, there is a fracking more safe approach than the other.

if someone prop a gun against your wife and ask for 20 dollars and you don't have the gun in hand

you don't have the gun in hand

Seems like I found the problem.

And while I don't carry everywhere, you'd have to be an idiot to go on safari in Chicongo unarmed.

If that's not a good enough answer for you, my wife would be armed as well and more than capable of defending herself.