This is a hero?

[SMR 368]

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. This statement says all about problems in US society with guns. If someone is not accurate with a pistol under pressure... they should not have one in their possession (especially not in a public place). The fact the guy had military training.... he meant to kill him. Throw the book at him. It's irrelevant to me that he came back and shot 5 more times. He meant to kill with his first shot... murderer in my book.

So who do you think should be allowed to have a gun? Police accuracy under pressure is notoriously bad. The military is better but still not fantastic. How do you determine who is accurate with a live firearm under pressure? You can do all the tests and training you want, but I imagine it's all a little different when the rounds are live and coming at you. By similar arguments, free speech should be limited to people that don't say dumb things and the right to not be searched should be limited to people that have nothing to hide. Once you put a qualification on the exercise of a right, it's no longer a right. Further, that qualification will be at least somewhat subjective and thus can be extended to stop practically anyone from exercising said right. Are you trying to say that you believe the right to bear arms should be revoked?

Just to clarify, do you believe that if he had stopped after the first round he would be guilty of the crime? Would it matter if the robber lived or died? Would it matter if he said he was aiming for the arm but mashed the trigger (most people do under pressure)?

[Fandango 1,440]

No question about it. Hence second degree murder. First degree requires premeditation which is different than intent. I just don't think that less than a minute after taking fire and giving chase you can say he was making a cool-headed, premeditated decision. He was acting in the heat of the moment, which is second degree murder.

Indeed. By very definition, no matter how anyone feels about him going to get the second gun, it is not 1st degree.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Indeed. By very definition, no matter how anyone feels about him going to get the second gun, it is not 1st degree.

Thats what I thought he'd be convicted of. That or manslaughter.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Sousuke

[Ready to do it 101]

I believe if a human being kills another then he is a murderer... regardless of the circumstances. Pre-meditated murder, self defense, war... it's all the same to me. You kill someone, you will be answering to the man upstairs. So to answer your question,if you don't know how to aim for the leg then there is a problem. Look at the situation... the kid comes in with a gun, the kid is there to rob the store. The kid is not expecting someone to have a gun. Had the pharmacist shot the kid in the leg, what do you think the kid does next? Obviously there is always the chance the kid shoots back, but ultimately if the kid is shot in the leg and his intention was to rob the place but he can no longer walk because he has been shot... the situation is quite possibly over. I.e. the kid gives up.... after all he's not going to be leaving with the loot and his intention was to rob the place, not kill people.

What if, you had a 15 year old son and a 10 year old daughter. Some bad men kidnap both of you and tell the 15 year old to go into the store with a gun, shooting all over the place and bring back all the money in the cash register... if you do not, your 10 year old sister is dead. Do you think your 15 year old son would do it? If it was this pharmacy he was ordered to rob you'd now have a dead 15 year old son and probably a dead 10 year old daughter. Had the pharmacist not had a gun, perhaps everyone would still be alive.

So who do you think should be allowed to have a gun? Police accuracy under pressure is notoriously bad. The military is better but still not fantastic. How do you determine who is accurate with a live firearm under pressure? You can do all the tests and training you want, but I imagine it's all a little different when the rounds are live and coming at you. By similar arguments, free speech should be limited to people that don't say dumb things and the right to not be searched should be limited to people that have nothing to hide. Once you put a qualification on the exercise of a right, it's no longer a right. Further, that qualification will be at least somewhat subjective and thus can be extended to stop practically anyone from exercising said right. Are you trying to say that you believe the right to bear arms should be revoked?

Just to clarify, do you believe that if he had stopped after the first round he would be guilty of the crime? Would it matter if the robber lived or died? Would it matter if he said he was aiming for the arm but mashed the trigger (most people do under pressure)?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Ready to do it

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

Had the pharmacist shot the kid in the leg, what do you think the kid does next? Obviously there is always the chance the kid shoots back, but ultimately if the kid is shot in the leg and his intention was to rob the place but he can no longer walk because he has been shot... the situation is quite possibly over. I.e. the kid gives up.... after all he's not going to be leaving with the loot and his intention was to rob the place, not kill people.

that works well in hollywood. do you by any chance own and shoot any firearms on a frequent basis?

[Ready to do it 101]

The last time a shot a gun was a bb gun at a target at summer camp when I was about 8 years old. I really just try to steer clear of violence of any kind.

that works well in hollywood. do you by any chance own and shoot any firearms on a frequent basis?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Ready to do it

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

The last time a shot a gun was a bb gun at a target at summer camp when I was about 8 years old. I really just try to steer clear of violence of any kind.

i suspected as much. i've been shooting firearms for about 40 years. it's one thing to hit a stationary target at the range under a controlled, familiar setting. it's quite another to hit a small moving target like you suggested in a situation where the adrenaline is pumping. the leg is about 4 times smaller a target than the chest.

just look at how police do (and yeah, they are fairly familiar with their firearms)

Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time. link

Well, both NYPD and LAPD give hit-rates that hover around 30 percent. In the article, New York claimed a 34 percent hit rate, while LA listed a 31 percent hit rate last year. link

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

now, can you really advocate shooting someone in the leg when they are armed and present an immediate danger? and knowing that IF you did have good aim and shoot them in the leg, that it wouldn't prevent them from firing anyways?

[Ready to do it 101]

Good point. I had no idea it was so difficult to hit a target. After watching movies like all the sniper movies where they hit a target from a zillion yards away it seems, I just thought anyone with any sort of training surely can hit what they are aiming for within 100 feet or less. Learn something new everyday :-)

now, can you really advocate shooting someone in the leg when they are armed and present an immediate danger? and knowing that IF you did have good aim and shoot them in the leg, that it wouldn't prevent them from firing anyways?