My vote too...

EDIT: 50 Stray Bullets

:1orglaugh omg lol... you guys are killing me lol.... "well i would have waited for them to be outta the way first, then shot" ( they were out of the way ENOUGH).... by then you might have been dead lol.

or " i will bet on the statistics & hope he doesnt kill me" lol.... well, to each thier own i suppose lol.:1orglaugh

lucky the women backed up with kid , otherwise she probably would end up with dead baby

fuck, when i posted this i was planning on getting the fitty spot lol.

notice how the bullets pass near the head of babe , and the mother getting outta of fireline

Cause that's what happens in the movies.



Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Everyone knows the laws, and knows what's right. No point in arguing over something to trival.:error

true.... its a good thing that people instinctually jump back away from such things as opposed to flinvhing forward & jumping INTO the way lol....:winkwink:

lol... i swear i think some of you are argueing just because its gfy lol....

anyway lol.... flame on... im hitting the sack lol

:1orglaugh

I'm getting my morning coffe , soon I gotta start the day and probably I'll forget about this nra instructor with his niggaz robbers forever , let me have my half hour of fun at GFY :pimp

guns bad
killing bad
bad is bad

porn is good

nah in the movies they just fire away..

chances are i would have not gtten around to taking a shot and would have bragged how i "was about to shoot him' all day long after heh

Infact that HAS happened to me quite a few times.. crackhead broke into my car once but by the time i got my gun he was gone.

lol... noooo, guns arent bad.... the bullets that miss are bad lol....

true, bad is bad....

ahhhhhhhhh porn..... porn is good yes ;) lol

cant kill a crackhead for breaking into your car.... that would get you labeled a gun nut on a vigilante trip.... no imminent threat of life involved...

hell, i wouldnt engage someone breaking into my car... then you are escalating a situation that didnt need to be a violent one.... better to just call 911 on that one.... property is replaceable, life is not:thumbsup


ok, NOW, im going to bed lol:upsidedow

edit for spelling

The robber raised his gun first, so I don't see how anyone can question the NRA guy for doing what he did.

Yeah, the mother and child were in the potential line of fire at first... but he was having a gun raised at him. It's time to think about your own life.

If that were me, I'd have done a gun battle even if there were a dozen babies laying on that counter if it meant protecting my own life.

Most bad guys aren't going to kill everyone in a place for no reason when they're only there to steal money. Acting in a defense during a robbery means cooperating. Police say you should cooperate with the robber so as to not put other lives in danger.

NEXT.

They say you sould cooperate, but they are also saying that to people who are relatively defenseless. People who have a gun in their hand have other options besides cooperating and hoping things don't go bad.

This is exactly why every single American should be allowed to carry a gun at all times.

I so prefer the British gun laws. No-one has them. If you get caught in possession of a gun you can come out with any excuse you want and the judge will still jail you as it is a minimum 2 years in prison.

We had only 140 murders here last year and 50 of those were in one go when Osama blew up a load of buses and trains.

Our way works.

I love my guns. Hell when I oil them up after a cleaning, I oil my self up. I love them lots.

But to shoot a man in the back 3 times? Once would have done it. What a coward.

Kick ass.. He should have went outside and put one in his brain too. :BangBang:

you're an idiot, bad guys dont give a fuck about gun laws moron :321GFY

He should have empited the fucking clip if you ask me. Life and death has no room for mercy. :2 cents:

I don't entertain the notion of mercy when someone comes in masked with a gun. that guy, given teh chance, will be dead. A cop wouldnt hesitate to kill an unarmed man.. I wouldnt hesitate to do the same to someone masked with a fucking gun..

If you work for a large retail company or small (if they do any training on the subject), you are taught to simply comply with the robbers demands.

That looked like some rinky dink little check cashing store or something, so no idea what they do. I guess they just shoot robbers, lol.

The making of a "music video" out of the whole thing was more disturbing to me I think. rah rah for gun fans. To each their own.

i like how he hides behind the girl at first to draw his gun

Well seems like we dont have alot of bad guys in the UK then.

Yeah, that explains why there are about 1000 times less murders in the UK than the US even though the US only has about 5 times the population of the UK...

It must be that all the bad guys in England actually own guns but they're just too damn polite to kill anyone with them :upsidedow

If it wasn't for the English, American's wouldn't of needed guns. :winkwink:











Just kidding, I love everybody and firing a gun around a baby to save your own ass and make a 'cool' video out of it to impress your NRA buddies is completely justifiable. :helpme

Righteous shooting. Mother and child were not in line of fire.

Guns make the US safer.

Violent crimes are coming down faster in the US than Canada.

Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that gun
control laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been
falling even faster in the United States.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

From an esteemed college in British Canada. Simon Fraser University

Legal citizens can protect themselves from scum. As it should be. It is not the Police's job to protect me and my own.

Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at.

I think that guy made a bad decision... consider the fact that the mother and her kid were there in front, he should not have shot at the robber. He may be a good shot, but doesnt the loudness of fireing a gun destroy babies hearing?

If you had a gun drawn on you and you believed there was a chance you could be killed, you'd think about a babies hearing rather than protect your own life?

Ok now heres where you might become confused..

I think what that guy did was wrong BUT im not saying i wouldnt do it myself.

We can talk law all day long but my emotions dont follow laws.. they just happen , and im just being blunt.. The guy in this video did some things wrong, and i likely would do just as many "wrong" things.. the problem is he put innocent people's lives in danger , whereas that where i draw the line..

It may not be legal , but ill shoot a guy for taking chewing gum from my car if i caught him

they wertent in HIS line of fire , they were certainly in the ROBBERS line of fire

Yeah I agree he did put the mother and child in danger. Had they not been there, then fire away. Im not saying I wouldnt have, because I know dam well Id be popping caps at a robber too.

Maybe it's the mother's fault also for not taking better action. Look at how she doesnt even turn her back, she just side steps slowely.

If you dont want to get yer ass shot off, don't rob people.

The shopkeeper did a great job.

1. He used the female shopkeeper as cover to get his weapon drawn.
(Surprise the bad guy = Excellent tactics)

2. He moved to the right and toward the robber to AVOID the mother and child.
(Obtain a clear line of fire = Excellent tactics)

3. He fired until the robber had left the building protecting everyone without pursuit.

This guy was not a gun nut or a wannabe hero. He was protecting his business and the lives of three people.

lol great idea , hide behind someone unarmed

great tactic if you know exactly where the other guys gun is going to be shot , but of course this is impossible..
the guy was running away he shot him in the back and the guy fell just outside the door , he wasnt protecting anything. It isnt hard to defend yourself when someone is running away

That must explain the picture of him looking like an idiot pointing a glock at a camera

I think the NRA guy did a great job. He had to use his discretion and it worked. When a robber is threatening your life for some money, and you have a way of protecting yourself and an opportunity to do so, you do it.

I've seen enough of things going the other way around. Robber gets his money, decides to shoot the victims execution style anyway for the fun of it.

Robbers beware.

Boom boom boom!

OK time for me to speak on this one...as an NRA certified expert in handguns ( yes I can testify) and someone who has taught over 5000 people how to shoot handguns I can say the shooting that the victum did was good shooting and was thought out I can also say that in my expert opnion the little girl was not in danger of any cf*.. "however" do I think he was justified in his shooting?.. no and I will tell you why... most robbers are what law enforcement calls... note passers... you know the guy at the bank who passes the note and then leaves.. well money is insured I dunno where he was or what if it were me personally I would have let it be and just givin the guy the money.. and belive me I am a true gun nut anybody who knows me knows I always roll with at least 2 guns on me at all times.. sometimes 3 with at least 150 rounds of ammo and yes we all do dream of using our gun.. I have many times but it has to be the right situiation.. all of my usage was during combat conditions in afghan.... at no point during that robery did I see his life in any imideate danger nor the other victums in that case... ok no on to legal issues... I don't know what state he was in.. all states are different in what is justified... somes states have what is called a retreat law.. you must prove that you tried everything in your best effort to get away before you deicided to use deadly force... one thing that is true to all states is you can not under any circumstance shoot anybody over property... like I said I don't know all the facts during this.. and there is no audio.. if the suspect even verbally threatened the vic then it is justified in any state... so thats my 2 cents.. now I am high as a kite and I am going to go clean my new MP5 have fun guys.. god bless america and god bless the dirty sluts

wow high as a kite and guns, thats a great combo...............

robbers shooting the victims after a succesfull robbery is about as likely as getting strucvk by lightning, it happens in the movies , in real life it doesnt usually happen that way.. and i have never heard of a robber shooting a baby , EVER , i have heard of babies getting hit by stray fire from a store owner/police , many times , but never from a robber..

You dont know the robber threatned anyones life.. all we see is a guy in a ski mask , for all we know he asked " do you sell ski masks ? " or " does this ski mask fit right ? If the guy was threatning the clerk , why would the woman and the baby not even move to the side. the baby doesnt look frightened in any way until after gung-ho guy starts shooting buddy in the back as he tried to flee.

The NRA instructor should have his license taken. He caused a bad situation to be worse, and more dangerous than it should have been. And if the state laws in Ohio are what they used to be, he would be headed to jail.

Everyone would have been a LOT safer if the perpetrator wasn't BREAKING THE LAW to begin with. Fuck, people... is it really that hard to comprehend? Don't break the law and you won't get shot! It's not rocket science, really.

hahah yeah, I'm sure that line of reasoning is gonna hold up in court :1orglaugh The perp lost. He's in jail now. Get over it. :1orglaugh

nobody is saying the robber doesnt deserve to get shot.

They are saying the jock who shot him put innocent people's lives at risk.. its not hard to comprehend if you read the full thread.

If the shop owner had a rocket launcher , should he use it because the robber broke the lawe and thats what you get for breaking the law ? doesn't make much sense does it ?

They have laws for what force you allowed to use to stop a crime.. shooting people in the back as they flee apparantly unarmed , isnt legal in any place i have been

i didnt give any reasoning , you must be quoting the wrong person . you quoted me stating FACTS..

FACT its more likely to get hit by lighting than shot in a store robbery by a robber

FACT i have never heard of a baby shot by a robber , but i have heard of babies being shot by cops/victims stray bullets..

Those facts have nothing to do with a court or a law , those are called facts , so im not sure why you would think FACTS = reasoning , and why they would be in court. what does the fact that lightning hits people more often than robbers shoot people have anything to do with court ?

It doesn't

The guy deserves to be in jail , and you seem to think that what i said somehow conflicts with that , well it doesnt . i still think the robber deserves jail , and he deserves to be shot in the head as far as im concerned. That has nothing to do with th irresponsobility of the store owner ..

He did precisely what any police officer would have done.

I'm not sure where you were going with this one, but.. cool. :thumbsup

I think every shopkeeper should immediately fire upon anyone committing armed robbery.

not a trained police officer. maybe a hick moronic cop who doesnt care about the public..

If a police officer did that here he would be in jail.

I dont doubt most police officers would have done the same thing, that doesnt make it right , it makes most cops idiots...

Its not rocket science.. if you pull a gun out with intent to shoot it around a baby , when the other person has no intentions or possibly not even a weapon.. YOUR AN IDIOT , plain and simple.

We dont see a weapon we dont hear a threat. all we see is a guy blasting another guy in the back several times as he tries to get away.