Great example of responsible firearms use. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Slims · 04-19-2009, 10:37 AM

YouTube - Real Gunfighter Lance Thomas on Justic Files

This guy was a watchmaker in LA who, following a string of nearby armed robberies/murders of fellow shopkeepers sought and was given a CCW.

He has since killed 5 armed robbers in his store.

Edit: I am deliberately posting this in Weaponry in the hopes we can avoid a discussion on politics and whatnot. Please try to keep comments objective. If you think he should have behaved differently feel free to explain, but don't get bogged down with the 2'nd amendment, how precious life is, etc.

Martian · 04-19-2009, 10:59 AM

I'm not sure what sort of discussion you want in this thread, if not an ethics/responsibility one. Can you clarify?

You also refer to this in the title as responsible firearms use. Opinions may vary.

Slims · 04-19-2009, 11:16 AM

I am not afraid of discussion. I am leery of starting a thread which I know has the potential to rapidly decay into a..."He shouldn't have been allowed to hurt people" vs. "The 2'nd Amendment lets him blast away with impunity" where both sides become quickly polarized and end up repeating their basic platform over and over again without regard to the OP, which is about this particular guys circumstances and actions.

I am all for a discussion on his particular level of preparedness (or paranoia), whether he personally would have been better served preparing in a different way or even simply handing over his watches, whether you agree with his statements about fellow shopkeepers potentially getting themselves into trouble, etc.

I know this thread will likely go south eventually, but hopefully not before a meaningful discussion runs it's course.

If you dont' think he was responsible, fire away. Just explain why.

Zeraph · 04-19-2009, 11:29 AM

Awesome.

That guy get's it. And he's totally earned his moustache!

My only question is, why no shotgun? Anyone with more self-defense experience answer that? Should he have had a shotgun? Or would that be too slow?

Slims · 04-19-2009, 11:34 AM

I suspect he has one. You can see a rifle and a shotgun in the background at one point, but those may simply be items he has purchased following the forced closure of his store.

Given the descriptions of the incidents I doubt a shotgun would have helped him initially...too slow/obvious, though he may have had time to get one during the encounter where he was shot three times as that went on for a little while.

Zeraph · 04-19-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

I suspect he has one. You can see a rifle and a shotgun in the background at one point, but those may simply be items he has purchased following the forced closure of his store.

Given the descriptions of the incidents I doubt a shotgun would have helped him initially...too slow/obvious, though he may have had time to get one during the encounter where he was shot three times as that went on for a little while.

Is that guessing or do you have some knowledge? Sorry I forget how much/what you've posted in the past. Just want to know who it's coming from. Though I'd agree with you (but I have no experience).

FuglyStick · 04-19-2009, 11:57 AM

I can't fault the guy one bit. The only time he used his firearm was when threatened with a firearm. He took the courses and practiced to be prepared if he should have to use the firearm. If by the end of the piece he seems a bit paranoid, it's because he made enemies of a gang that has the firepower and numbers to be a real threat.

KirStang · 04-20-2009, 12:37 PM

That is one lucky man. Took a round in the neck, but it turned out to just be a fleshwound? How many times have you heard that happen?

I am especially happy that he took the time to train and consider, tactically, what to do in the event of a robbery. Like I've said to many other gun owners, a gun is a responsibility, you want to carry, you ought to undergo adequate training so that you know what you're doing. You know. Sorta like drivers licenses.

That being said, I should really invest in a safe. >_< (*OT)

================

It seems as if the reporter was playing the devils advocate and asking the "what if you just gave him the watches and he went away" questions. On the other hand, doing so renders the shopkeep at the mercy of the robber.

Good points all around.

Cynosure · 04-20-2009, 01:21 PM

Did you hear that 9-1-1 call he made, in the middle of his first gunfight? The guy is astonishingly calm and collected, talking to the operator; meanwhile, you can hear gunshots going off, in the background. Methinks it's this guy's coolness under fire that has kept him alive through so many gun-to-gun confrontations. (Plus, he's quick and accurate.) Astonishing. This guy should've been a SWAT team member or something like that, not a watch repairer.

Bear Cub · 04-20-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure

Did you hear that 9-1-1 call he made, in the middle of his first gunfight? The guy is astonishingly calm and collected, talking to the operator; meanwhile, you can hear gunshots going off, in the background. Methinks it's this guy's coolness under fire that has kept him alive through so many gun-to-gun confrontations. (Plus, he's quick and accurate.) Astonishing. This guy should've been a SWAT team member or something like that, not a watch repairer.

Yea, but he sees way more action repairing watches.

Zeraph · 04-21-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure

Did you hear that 9-1-1 call he made, in the middle of his first gunfight? The guy is astonishingly calm and collected, talking to the operator; meanwhile, you can hear gunshots going off, in the background. Methinks it's this guy's coolness under fire that has kept him alive through so many gun-to-gun confrontations. (Plus, he's quick and accurate.) Astonishing. This guy should've been a SWAT team member or something like that, not a watch repairer.

I talked to an ATF agent one time that went undercover a lot. He had the most engagements out of the entire ATF. Like he'd be alone, and theyd just start shooting kind of thing. Not like he went in with a SWAT type force. And he came out on top everytime. I think it was his cool head cause he addmited to not being the best shot, or the quickest, etc. Anyway I 'm not telling the story very well but he was one cool guy. Kind of makes you believe super heroes (in a toned down sense) are possible.

ChrisJericho · 04-21-2009, 10:31 PM

Yeah after the first encounter I thought he was going to get a shotgun, but it looks like he did just fine with the pistols.

I would agree that this man was very responsible in his use of firearms. He legally possessed his weapons, spent time training with them, and used them to defend his life.

His story makes me wonder how much money (and potentially lives) he saved the taxpayers in his area by killing these criminals.

Strange Famous · 04-24-2009, 11:02 AM

He is a killer who has ended 5 people's lives.

It is astonishing to me that even those who would claim he acted in legal self defence would consider the taking of human lives in this manner as something worthy of celebration and congratulation.

And I'm sorry - if you think that the destruction of human life is not an ethical question - you live in a different world to I do.

FuglyStick · 04-24-2009, 12:26 PM

He is a killer who ended 5 people's lives, 5 people who had no respect for anyone else's lives, and might have taken other innocent people's lives. The man in the video is not mounting heads on his wall, he's just protecting himself, the right of any man. Don't come looking for sympathy for his "victims," because they're not victims.

Strange Famous · 04-24-2009, 12:35 PM

They are also not trophies.

FuglyStick · 04-24-2009, 12:40 PM

As I said, he's not mounting the heads on his wall. He doesn't come across as a braggart or a vigilante. He's a guy protecting his life. I'm not going to fault him for that, or accuse him of being immoral or a criminal. That's not what protecting yourself means.

Strange Famous · 04-24-2009, 01:00 PM

As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot?

I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison.

There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed.

genuinegirly · 04-24-2009, 01:02 PM

Strange Famous - if you would like to respond to what I am about to post, I recommend that you do so via PM. I do not think you should detract any longer from the intent of this thread-starter. (This is me speaking as a friend, not a mod.)

I'm grateful that there are average law-abiding citizens out there who are comfortable with guns.

I would personally have closed up shop and moved elsewhere if I had learned that there were frequent armed robberies in the area.

This man chose to do away with the armed cirminals themselves, in a manner that is completely legal. I personally do not understand how someone can have the stomach for such a choice in action. I am glad that there are people who are willing to clean out the vermin of the world. Some people clean out the world's vermin through humanitarian efforts - helping with the broken families and young children that could, without propper attention, turn into these armed criminals.

But what is more humanitarian? Allowing vermin to live? Vermin being people who rob, people who steal, people who choose to destroy other people's lives and livelihoods rather than adding to the general welbeing of their community through lawful acts and gainful employment. Allowing them to corrupt others, allowing their hate-filled disease to spread - to destroy more lives?

We need more people who are willing to step up into these areas and do away with the vermin of the world. People who aren't going to stand for their livelihood and their lives to be threatened. People who are willing to move in a humanitarian bent and those who are more proactive. We need them.

We are dealing with gang warfare and armed robberies on a frightening scale. Many make the choice, like me, to walk away - go somewhere else that has little trace of vermin. But that vermin is still festering, still there. Still ready to move, still gaining ground. And until law-abiding, gentle people are willing to stand up and say "NO MORE" the spread of this scourge will not cease.

We need more armed watchmakers.

FuglyStick · 04-24-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot?

I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison.

There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Strange Famous - if you would like to respond to what I am about to post, I recommend that you do so via PM. I do not think you should detract any longer from the intent of this thread-starter. (This is me speaking as a friend, not a mod.)

I'm grateful that there are average law-abiding citizens out there who are comfortable with guns.

I would personally have closed up shop and moved elsewhere if I had learned that there were frequent armed robberies in the area.

This man chose to do away with the armed cirminals themselves, in a manner that is completely legal. I personally do not understand how someone can have the stomach for such a choice in action. I am glad that there are people who are willing to clean out the vermin of the world. Some people clean out the world's vermin through humanitarian efforts - helping with the broken families and young children that could, without propper attention, turn into these armed criminals.

But what is more humanitarian? Allowing vermin to live? Vermin being people who rob, people who steal, people who choose to destroy other people's lives and livelihoods rather than adding to the general welbeing of their community through lawful acts and gainful employment. Allowing them to corrupt others, allowing their hate-filled disease to spread - to destroy more lives?

We need more people who are willing to step up into these areas and do away with the vermin of the world. People who aren't going to stand for their livelihood and their lives to be threatened. People who are willing to move in a humanitarian bent and those who are more proactive. We need them.

We are dealing with gang warfare and armed robberies on a frightening scale. Many make the choice, like me, to walk away - go somewhere else that has little trace of vermin. But that vermin is still festering, still there. Still ready to move, still gaining ground. And until law-abiding, gentle people are willing to stand up and say "NO MORE" the spread of this scourge will not cease.

We need more armed watchmakers.

Strange Famous, I knew that you would get around to making the argument that the shop owner was protecting his property and not his life. That simply is not the case.

When you point a loaded weapon at someone, you've already proven that you are willing to take their life. That is the responsibility of a firearm, and it applies to the guys in white hats as well as the guys in black hats. The man in the video understood that responsibility; anyone who relies on a firearm as a means of defense needs to understand that responsibility, and be willing to accept it, or they have no business owning a firearm.

But I won't go as far as GG and accuse the attempted robbers of being "vermin." I have no idea what drove them to attempt armed robbery, but whatever it was, it doesn't change the fact that they would still be alive if they hadn't threatened a particular shop owner with lethal force.

Martian · 04-24-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

I am all for a discussion on his particular level of preparedness (or paranoia), whether he personally would have been better served preparing in a different way or even simply handing over his watches, whether you agree with his statements about fellow shopkeepers potentially getting themselves into trouble, etc.

So far as I can tell, Strange Famous is still within the outlined intent of the thread as presented by the OP. Borderline, perhaps, but his argument seems to be at it's core that Mr. Thomas unnecessarily escalated these situations.

I object to referring to these people as 'vermin.' Criminals, yes. Criminals are still people though, and all the dehumanizing language in the world doesn't change that.

Personally I find it hard to claim for certain that Mr. Thomas' actions were strictly necessary. I find it equally difficult to assert that they were not. Without having been there, it's hard to say for certain one way or the other. I do know that it seems a peculiarity to me to celebrate the taking of a human life, regardless of the circumstances. If Mr. Thomas was under imminent threat of death, than perhaps he was justified. Note that in my opinion, imminent threat of death does not include the typical robbery scenario. It strikes me that nearly any of the robbers could likely have shot him before he had a chance to react, had that been their intent. The possible exception is the last confrontation; as outlined in the video, it seems as though he more got lucky than anything else in that one.

It's an interesting artifact of US culture that as a rule Americans tend to approach everything in terms of absolutes. Thus, we are presented with this story as if it's black and white, almost like it's Clint Eastwoord versus the Hollywood villains du jour. The problem with this in my opinion is that it completely discounts the fact that every one of the people Mr. Thomas shot and killed was just that -- a person, with hopes and dreams and strengths and foibles and family and friends and everything else that entails. Perhaps they weren't good people. Not people I'd want to invite to dinner by any means. But people all the same, and the taking of a human life is in my opinion never a positive thing.

I claim no moral authority in this. As per my standard, these are simply my musings. Make of them what you will.

More broadly, was he responsible in that he underwent rigorous training due to his ownership of firearms? Well. Again it's only my opinion, but I reckon anyone who wishes to own such a powerful tool ought to go through the same.

ChrisJericho · 04-24-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot?

I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison.

There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed.

There is such a lack of logic in the above post that I am not sure if the author is being serious or not. I will have to select the most glaring error, as the overall theme of the above post is simply too fictional to be addressed.

The statement that "As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot." The author in this statement is implying that because the watch store owner survived, he was merely protecting his property. However the problem in using this logic, is that the only way the store owner could have been considered to be protecting his life, would have been to be killed by the criminals. For example, let's say one of the robbers entered the store, immediately shot the owner in the hand or foot, and then proceded to demand money or goods. Using the aforementioned logic, the store owner should still comply with the robber, after all the benevolence of the robber is assumed to be true and the store owner has only suffered non-life threatening wounds. Obviously such thinking is intensely erroneous.

inBOIL · 04-24-2009, 10:40 PM

Mr. Thomas had two realistic possibilities: kill the robbers or give up his property. If he's prohibited (either legally or morally) from killing, then he must be obligated to relinquish his property. Note that the legal system is not a reliable defender in this situation; the robbers may never be caught, and if they are they may be unable to make reparation. I'm uncomfortable with any set of rules that obligates an otherwise innocent man to give up his property simply because his robber has placed his own life in the balance.

I also agree with genuinegirly, we need more armed watchmakers. The police/government can't solve these societal problems on their own; responsible members of society need to stand up and fight these problems. I don't see the criminals as vermin, but rather as diseased. They carry and spread the disease of violence, theft, and destruction, and while it's preferable to cure them of this disease (or quarantine them), doing so requires their cooperation. If they choose not to cooperate, you can either make the unfortunate decision to end their lives, or make the unfortunate decision to let the disease spread.

Strange Famous · 04-24-2009, 11:04 PM

Do we suppose that an ordinary person - who was forced to take life against their will when attacking would go on television to boast about their kills?

In the nation state he lives, apparently his actions are legal, and the fact he stays that side of the line is an aspect of his personality, the aspect I am more interested in is that he wants to go on television and boast about the people he has killed; that in his store he has a gun every three feet. i really do not think anyone can credably make an argumeng "he doesnt seem boastful"... someone who does not want to celebrate the death they have caused doesnt volunteer to go on a TV show and desrcibe how the 5 victims were killed in lurid detail.

I was very deliberate in the language I used... i did not call him a murderer, I did call him a killer and I call him again a killer.

with regards to Inboils comment, that criminals are a disease and that society must treat them accordingly - I find pretty frightening that after WWII and the horrors we found humanity to be capable of, there are still people who can believe such things about fellow men and women. There are no actions which can be made that invalidate someone's humanity. When you start to believe that there are, its a pretty terrifying slippery slope.

inBOIL · 04-24-2009, 11:39 PM

I didn't say that criminals are a disease, but that they carry a disease (meatphorically, of course). This does not invalidate their humanity, but preserves it while still acknowledging the danger that they present.

Strange Famous · 04-25-2009, 07:24 AM

You said, quite clearly, that they were diseased, and that if they would not repent and "co-operate" with their rehabilitation: they should be killed or the disease would spread further. I fear this watchmaker perhaps has the same feelings.

I think that the terrible and depressing story of this killing watchmaker makes a strong an argument against gun ownership as can be made. The more and more gun violence there is in America the more and more the gun lobby claims that they need to have guns to protect themselves.... a very nice example of what Orwell called doublethink.

KirStang · 04-25-2009, 07:36 AM

Ugh. Give it a rest.

Nimetic · 04-26-2009, 12:41 AM

Why doesn't he simply install defensive equipment, bulletproof screens and so on?

My other question is... if the next guy (or the one after) kills him and takes his many loaded guns, will this still constitute a responsible use of firearms?

genuinegirly · 04-26-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Why doesn't he simply install defensive equipment, bulletproof screens and so on?

My other question is... if the next guy (or the one after) kills him and takes his many loaded guns, will this still constitute a responsible use of firearms?

He did install a significant amount of defensive equipment - cameras, a second shop door, and he hired a security guard. Doing more would have been too much of a financial drain. Such defensive measures are far more expensive than owning a few guns with proper permits.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

---------- Post added at 03:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

...

I think that the terrible and depressing story of this killing watchmaker makes a strong an argument against gun ownership as can be made. The more and more gun violence there is in America the more and more the gun lobby claims that they need to have guns to protect themselves.... a very nice example of what Orwell called doublethink.

I recommend starting a new thread in Politics on this vein. Feel free to post the same video as reference. Such a conversation is not appropriate for "Tilted Weapons" as it is a region of the board for gun enthusiasts to speak freely without negative, harsh critiques.

genuinegirly · 04-26-2009, 07:20 AM

If anyone would like to continue a political debate on this topic, please do so in the equivalent thread in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...rearm-use.html

biznatch · 04-26-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot.

How do you know that? I am not really an advocate for gun ownership, kind of on the fence about it to be honest, but how the hell do you know that the robber isn't only keeping you alive until you hand the goods over?
His life was threatened, because he had a gun pointed at him. He acted in self-defense. Whether he should have that right is another story, but he doesn't really seem like the type of guy who looks for a fight, just someone who knows there are bound to be some and is prepared for them.
Edit: other people already attacked that part of your statement. Still, though, my point stands.

Zenturian · 04-27-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

He is a killer who has ended 5 people's lives.

It is astonishing to me that even those who would claim he acted in legal self defence would consider the taking of human lives in this manner as something worthy of celebration and congratulation.

And I'm sorry - if you think that the destruction of human life is not an ethical question - you live in a different world to I do.

You are welcome to be murdered while running your own buisness. Doesn't make you wrong, just dead.

Fire · 04-27-2009, 06:27 PM

I believe that people who try to harm others for their goods are scum who deserve to be killed by the boatload- this watch store owner is not someone who was denying a starving man food, or going out on the town to hunt for thugs to shoot cause he liked to- this is a man who ran his own business, and had people come into it to stick a gun in his face and rob him... Fuck them, anyone who sympathizes with worthless wastes of skin like that is abetting the cancer on our society.....

MSD · 04-28-2009, 08:20 AM

When I think of defending property versus defending life, This is all that I can think of:
The Fairfield Mirror - DiMeo Charged With Stealing Handgun in Donnelly Murders

Quote:

The Donnelly murders stunned the community, not only because a murder had not occurred in Fairfield in nine years, but because the Donnellys were well-known and well-liked. More than 1,000 people attended the funeral. The Donnellys' daughter Tara also graduated from Fairfield in 2003.

A couple, at their business, gunned down because a man on a robbery spree decided that he would be better off not leaving witnesses. Their store was within line of sight of the police station.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Do we suppose that an ordinary person - who was forced to take life against their will when attacking would go on television to boast about their kills?

In the nation state he lives, apparently his actions are legal, and the fact he stays that side of the line is an aspect of his personality, the aspect I am more interested in is that he wants to go on television and boast about the people he has killed; that in his store he has a gun every three feet. i really do not think anyone can credably make an argumeng "he doesnt seem boastful"... someone who does not want to celebrate the death they have caused doesnt volunteer to go on a TV show and desrcibe how the 5 victims were killed in lurid detail.

I'm not a psychologist, but from what little I see, this man has felt backed into a corner where he felt he had no other choice five times and is still suffering post-traumatic stress from it. He isn't so much boasting as he is once again reassuring himself that what he did was right. If he hadn't killed in self-defense, those criminals likely would have gone on to kill innocent people. Sometimes the right thing to do is shocking and traumatic. I suspect that he is also hoping to deter further robberies of himself and his colleagues by showing the dire consequences of robbing them.

Jinn · 04-28-2009, 09:54 AM

The problem you have Strange is that you're somehow likening the dead individuals to 'victims', as if somehow their death was not warranted or that they hadn't brought the situation on themselves. If they hadn't illegally entered a store and POINTED A LOADED FIREARM AT THE OWNER, they would not be 'victims.'

tricks · 05-12-2009, 03:11 PM

In the end, his responsible handgun use did him no good. He closed that business for "appointment only" service. he's become a recluse.

It seemed like, towards the end, gang members were coming to his store expressly to make him the trophy.

He defended his property but still lost, for the most part, what he was defending in the end.

Slims · 05-12-2009, 06:33 PM

True, but he may well be dead had he not acted.

04-19-2009, 10:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I'm not sure what sort of discussion you want in this thread, if not an ethics/responsibility one. Can you clarify? You also refer to this in the title as responsible firearms use. Opinions may vary. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

04-19-2009, 11:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I am not afraid of discussion. I am leery of starting a thread which I know has the potential to rapidly decay into a..."He shouldn't have been allowed to hurt people" vs. "The 2'nd Amendment lets him blast away with impunity" where both sides become quickly polarized and end up repeating their basic platform over and over again without regard to the OP, which is about this particular guys circumstances and actions. I am all for a discussion on his particular level of preparedness (or paranoia), whether he personally would have been better served preparing in a different way or even simply handing over his watches, whether you agree with his statements about fellow shopkeepers potentially getting themselves into trouble, etc. I know this thread will likely go south eventually, but hopefully not before a meaningful discussion runs it's course. If you dont' think he was responsible, fire away. Just explain why. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 04-19-2009 at 11:19 AM..

04-19-2009, 11:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I suspect he has one. You can see a rifle and a shotgun in the background at one point, but those may simply be items he has purchased following the forced closure of his store. Given the descriptions of the incidents I doubt a shotgun would have helped him initially...too slow/obvious, though he may have had time to get one during the encounter where he was shot three times as that went on for a little while. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

04-19-2009, 11:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	I can't fault the guy one bit. The only time he used his firearm was when threatened with a firearm. He took the courses and practiced to be prepared if he should have to use the firearm. If by the end of the piece he seems a bit paranoid, it's because he made enemies of a gang that has the firepower and numbers to be a real threat. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

04-21-2009, 10:31 PM	#12 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	Yeah after the first encounter I thought he was going to get a shotgun, but it looks like he did just fine with the pistols. I would agree that this man was very responsible in his use of firearms. He legally possessed his weapons, spent time training with them, and used them to defend his life. His story makes me wonder how much money (and potentially lives) he saved the taxpayers in his area by killing these criminals. __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

04-19-2009, 11:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Awesome. That guy get's it. And he's totally earned his moustache! My only question is, why no shotgun? Anyone with more self-defense experience answer that? Should he have had a shotgun? Or would that be too slow?

04-20-2009, 12:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	That is one lucky man. Took a round in the neck, but it turned out to just be a fleshwound? How many times have you heard that happen? I am especially happy that he took the time to train and consider, tactically, what to do in the event of a robbery. Like I've said to many other gun owners, a gun is a responsibility, you want to carry, you ought to undergo adequate training so that you know what you're doing. You know. Sorta like drivers licenses. That being said, I should really invest in a safe. >_< (*OT) ================ It seems as if the reporter was playing the devils advocate and asking the "what if you just gave him the watches and he went away" questions. On the other hand, doing so renders the shopkeep at the mercy of the robber. Good points all around.

04-20-2009, 01:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	Did you hear that 9-1-1 call he made, in the middle of his first gunfight? The guy is astonishingly calm and collected, talking to the operator; meanwhile, you can hear gunshots going off, in the background. Methinks it's this guy's coolness under fire that has kept him alive through so many gun-to-gun confrontations. (Plus, he's quick and accurate.) Astonishing. This guy should've been a SWAT team member or something like that, not a watch repairer.

04-24-2009, 11:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	He is a killer who has ended 5 people's lives. It is astonishing to me that even those who would claim he acted in legal self defence would consider the taking of human lives in this manner as something worthy of celebration and congratulation. And I'm sorry - if you think that the destruction of human life is not an ethical question - you live in a different world to I do. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-24-2009, 12:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	He is a killer who ended 5 people's lives, 5 people who had no respect for anyone else's lives, and might have taken other innocent people's lives. The man in the video is not mounting heads on his wall, he's just protecting himself, the right of any man. Don't come looking for sympathy for his "victims," because they're not victims. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

04-24-2009, 12:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	They are also not trophies. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-24-2009, 12:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	As I said, he's not mounting the heads on his wall. He doesn't come across as a braggart or a vigilante. He's a guy protecting his life. I'm not going to fault him for that, or accuse him of being immoral or a criminal. That's not what protecting yourself means. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

04-24-2009, 01:00 PM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot? I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison. There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-24-2009, 01:02 PM	#18 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Strange Famous - if you would like to respond to what I am about to post, I recommend that you do so via PM. I do not think you should detract any longer from the intent of this thread-starter. (This is me speaking as a friend, not a mod.) I'm grateful that there are average law-abiding citizens out there who are comfortable with guns. I would personally have closed up shop and moved elsewhere if I had learned that there were frequent armed robberies in the area. This man chose to do away with the armed cirminals themselves, in a manner that is completely legal. I personally do not understand how someone can have the stomach for such a choice in action. I am glad that there are people who are willing to clean out the vermin of the world. Some people clean out the world's vermin through humanitarian efforts - helping with the broken families and young children that could, without propper attention, turn into these armed criminals. But what is more humanitarian? Allowing vermin to live? Vermin being people who rob, people who steal, people who choose to destroy other people's lives and livelihoods rather than adding to the general welbeing of their community through lawful acts and gainful employment. Allowing them to corrupt others, allowing their hate-filled disease to spread - to destroy more lives? We need more people who are willing to step up into these areas and do away with the vermin of the world. People who aren't going to stand for their livelihood and their lives to be threatened. People who are willing to move in a humanitarian bent and those who are more proactive. We need them. We are dealing with gang warfare and armed robberies on a frightening scale. Many make the choice, like me, to walk away - go somewhere else that has little trace of vermin. But that vermin is still festering, still there. Still ready to move, still gaining ground. And until law-abiding, gentle people are willing to stand up and say "NO MORE" the spread of this scourge will not cease. We need more armed watchmakers. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy Last edited by genuinegirly; 04-24-2009 at 01:05 PM..

04-24-2009, 10:40 PM	#22 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	Mr. Thomas had two realistic possibilities: kill the robbers or give up his property. If he's prohibited (either legally or morally) from killing, then he must be obligated to relinquish his property. Note that the legal system is not a reliable defender in this situation; the robbers may never be caught, and if they are they may be unable to make reparation. I'm uncomfortable with any set of rules that obligates an otherwise innocent man to give up his property simply because his robber has placed his own life in the balance. I also agree with genuinegirly, we need more armed watchmakers. The police/government can't solve these societal problems on their own; responsible members of society need to stand up and fight these problems. I don't see the criminals as vermin, but rather as diseased. They carry and spread the disease of violence, theft, and destruction, and while it's preferable to cure them of this disease (or quarantine them), doing so requires their cooperation. If they choose not to cooperate, you can either make the unfortunate decision to end their lives, or make the unfortunate decision to let the disease spread. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

04-24-2009, 11:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Do we suppose that an ordinary person - who was forced to take life against their will when attacking would go on television to boast about their kills? In the nation state he lives, apparently his actions are legal, and the fact he stays that side of the line is an aspect of his personality, the aspect I am more interested in is that he wants to go on television and boast about the people he has killed; that in his store he has a gun every three feet. i really do not think anyone can credably make an argumeng "he doesnt seem boastful"... someone who does not want to celebrate the death they have caused doesnt volunteer to go on a TV show and desrcibe how the 5 victims were killed in lurid detail. I was very deliberate in the language I used... i did not call him a murderer, I did call him a killer and I call him again a killer. with regards to Inboils comment, that criminals are a disease and that society must treat them accordingly - I find pretty frightening that after WWII and the horrors we found humanity to be capable of, there are still people who can believe such things about fellow men and women. There are no actions which can be made that invalidate someone's humanity. When you start to believe that there are, its a pretty terrifying slippery slope. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-24-2009, 11:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	I didn't say that criminals are a disease, but that they carry a disease (meatphorically, of course). This does not invalidate their humanity, but preserves it while still acknowledging the danger that they present. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

04-25-2009, 07:24 AM	#25 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	You said, quite clearly, that they were diseased, and that if they would not repent and "co-operate" with their rehabilitation: they should be killed or the disease would spread further. I fear this watchmaker perhaps has the same feelings. I think that the terrible and depressing story of this killing watchmaker makes a strong an argument against gun ownership as can be made. The more and more gun violence there is in America the more and more the gun lobby claims that they need to have guns to protect themselves.... a very nice example of what Orwell called doublethink. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-25-2009, 07:36 AM	#26 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Ugh. Give it a rest.

04-26-2009, 12:41 AM	#27 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Why doesn't he simply install defensive equipment, bulletproof screens and so on? My other question is... if the next guy (or the one after) kills him and takes his many loaded guns, will this still constitute a responsible use of firearms?

04-26-2009, 07:20 AM	#29 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	If anyone would like to continue a political debate on this topic, please do so in the equivalent thread in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...rearm-use.html __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

04-27-2009, 06:27 PM	#32 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	I believe that people who try to harm others for their goods are scum who deserve to be killed by the boatload- this watch store owner is not someone who was denying a starving man food, or going out on the town to hunt for thugs to shoot cause he liked to- this is a man who ran his own business, and had people come into it to stick a gun in his face and rob him... Fuck them, anyone who sympathizes with worthless wastes of skin like that is abetting the cancer on our society..... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

04-28-2009, 09:54 AM	#34 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	The problem you have Strange is that you're somehow likening the dead individuals to 'victims', as if somehow their death was not warranted or that they hadn't brought the situation on themselves. If they hadn't illegally entered a store and POINTED A LOADED FIREARM AT THE OWNER, they would not be 'victims.' __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

05-12-2009, 03:11 PM	#35 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	In the end, his responsible handgun use did him no good. He closed that business for "appointment only" service. he's become a recluse. It seemed like, towards the end, gang members were coming to his store expressly to make him the trophy. He defended his property but still lost, for the most part, what he was defending in the end. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

05-12-2009, 06:33 PM	#36 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	True, but he may well be dead had he not acted. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence