Security Guard kicks ass and takes name.

[SpectacularWebHead]

Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.

What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)

I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm

They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.

Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.

And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.

Oh wow. Look at that, conjecture! Lack of geographical knowledge! Complete lack of geo-political environments! assumptions that everywhere else is the same thing as where they live!

I mean, really? Can this get any more stereotypical?

This is getting tiring to the point posts can be categorized.

1. America is located next to Mexico. This shouldn't be a surprise. Britain and Australia are NOT. Countries that near other countries have actual effects on those countries. Saying America's problems are their own is like Israel's problem is itself and not Iran. The fact I need to explain this to you is astounding. Stop saying "my country doesn't need to deal with this, so you are wrong." Its like an American saying starving Africans don't exist because America isn't starving. Stop it.

2. Drugs are not there because of guns, gun problems are there BECAUSE of drugs. Guns require money, and how exactly can they buy guns if they have no drugs? In fact, history proves this, the prohibition. The fact I need to do a history lesson is depressing. If there is no hot product, there is no need for guns to fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organized_crime

3. When you have money, which drug pushers do, you have practically everything. Especially when America has a huge Drug problem. Do you honestly think Cartels got this powerful by the second amendment? Please, they are powerful because their government doesn't give a damn, and their biggest customers are a stones-throw away to hand you a shit-ton of cash. With that cash, you can corrupt anyone you wish.

America's drug problem:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-4222322.html

Military gangs/ military corruption:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-16/news/30523831_1_gang-members-artillery-assault-weapons
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/15/11717393-marines-sold-stolen-combat-weapons-to-gangs-china?lite

There are hundreds examples of drug/gun tunnels:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/its-been-big-week-mexican-drug-tunnels/54539/

Gun smuggling being gun shows, private sales, and thefts:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Cartel_Strategy.pdf

I would go on, but I am tired. I am pretty sure you would go "nuh-uh" and run off touting fallacious arguments anyway

Your entire argument is fallacious, and you did a wonderful job of diverging so far from the original point with this cock and bull drug story that it's almost impossible to regain any semblance of relevancy. We WERE talking about a man shot by a security guard after being left in a postion he could not possibly defend himself or maim his attacker from, and you started talking about how all america's problems are caused by the drug trade instead of acknowledging your warped gun laws may be a problem?

YES, drugs are a big problem in america. Maybe the biggest problem in america to date. YES something needs to be done about these mobsters and gangsters. But this entire topic of discussion has no relevancy to the statemnet "America has crap laws about firearms". You bringing up the drug trade to divert from the fact you didn't actually have a relevant response to do with The OP was masterful, because I pretty much started ignoring what we were supposed to be discussing too. So all this wonderful wall of text mey corroborate your theory that Drugs are bad, but it does nothing to prove that this security guard shooting that man was the right thing to do.

you sir, got your ass handed to you on the tangent argument. Given that you continued the line of thought on it but abandon it now that you have no leg to stand on in it is kinda a dick move too. Like you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and trying to dismiss it. Might as well fess up about it there. Given that your argument about gun laws was based on a premise of it relating to drug trade, this now means your argument is no longer valid and either needs reworking or to be dropped.

Basically, you said "Us has bad gun laws" Then winded up using drug crime issues as an example. He just blew that support out of the water so you are just left with the assertion at the moment. I addressed the man's right to shoot in my previous post.

I continued along your tangent because I thought you may realise that your blindness to what happens in other countries makes everything you say about america strengthen my part in your tangent argument. You like doing research, Compare all of that tangent information about america to it's correspondant to say, australia. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about how huge a difference gun laws make on general crime rates and corruption. I'm backing out at this point because I grow weary of your stubborness and general un-willingness to acknowledge the blinding facts glaring you in the face.

 

[yuval152]

He did a good job, they faced the consequences.

 

[Arakasi]

I laughed at the part of the video where they bleeped out the name. Makes me automatically replace it with a swear word.

"The 18 year old fucker..."

 

[runic knight]

Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.

What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)

I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm

They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.

Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.

And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.

You sir, are you an idiot? I know I know, I like to give fair posts and try to be civil, but come on! Did you even read that post? When he is talking about how the issues is that the drug corruption has seeped into the military across the border, and that it is a fear that it will happen over here, suddenly, it doesn't matter what gun laws are. The military HAS GUNS. Hell, a lot of cartels that cause issues across the border get their weaponry from Mexico, so american gun laws along that stretch mean jack shit anyways. And I am sure since they are smuggling one illegal thing, guns smuggled as well is not that hard to see. Just saying.

If what you're saying is accurate, this problem of intense corruption would not be exclusive to america, now would it? ALL militaries have guns, yet not ALL organised crime syndicates have infiltrated ALL the militaries in the world. It's down to corruption and the easy access to guns that you people have so wonderfully elected to bestow. What you're both saying is; The fact organised crime can get weapons very easily in the USA has no bearing on the fact they are now corrupting your military and government and making millions each year selling drugs? And you think I'M an idiot? Think about what you're saying. This level of corruption is exclusive to america. What do ALL and I mean ALL American Mobsters have? Guns and Drugs. Now, lets look at england. There is a low level of organised crime corrupting into major governmental departments, despite the fact we have the most inept government in the entire world. What do all English mobsters have? Drugs. Very few have access to guns. And we have very little corruption. I think there's a pretty obvious corruption as to why you guys are in the shit and we aren't, dearie.

At the moment, it is extensive in mexico but the fear is it will spread to america or canada even. Now why this is a big issue geographically has to relate to, well, geography. Or, more importantly, economics and geography. See, america is the biggest consumer of drugs. This added to drug laws means big profits for the illegal trade. This means the people who sell the shit want to be close so travel expense is less. Also crossing the ground boarder is easier then the sea or air from a distance. Thus why south of the border became the drug runner's choice. And why the funds were used the corrupt the mexican military. And now that it has grown so much, why the fear of it corrupting the american one too.

the drug problem leads to the gun problem in organized crime. Prohibition demonstrated this as the funds from the illegal trade was funneled into weapons to protect the trade and corrupting police. fast forward to the present. the drug trade gives the funds to buy weapons still. gives the funds to corrupt military now. And much like how corrupted cop can give you guns, corrupted military can give the assault rifles and illegal firearms used now.

The issue with your comparison is one of scale of operation. US is the biggest user of all drugs, and one of the most restrictive to their use. This requires a huge underworld to keep up supply to the demand. It is larger in sheer numbers of users if you look at the numbers in population, you see the US is pretty big there too. That means lots of people all around, lots of users and lots of competition between sellers.

Also, most street sellers don't use guns. Hell, most sellers don't look like the street thug asshats they are thought to be. It is the bigger operations and harder cities that have the most guns and the reason is one of competition.

The drug problem does not lead to the gun problem. The gun problem makes crime far easier, and thus leads to the drug problem and all the things you have said. Considering the last time american gun laws were valid was when america had recently become independant and you needed guns just to survive, a change is in order. Otherwise we get cases such as the one the topic was about, where a man murders another and gets given accolades for this crime. Johnny gunslinger back there bought up this whole drug trade irrelevancy to justify why he thought murder was OK in this circumstance, diverging entirely from any sense of relevance to the original topic.

You... have any real case to make to back up that first claim there? I mean I called up historical precedent at least to show the theme of
Illegal trade--->competition arms race--->rise in violence with said arms.
you just...well, kinda just state it as given without doing anything to show it. As for murder... what?
If a nation you were having hostile relations with invaded your own, didn't fire a shot mind you, just wound up in a field outside a large city with a huge force rolling at you, what would your reaction be?

The guard at a bank, who's job it is to stop the money from being taken and protect the lives of the customers and workers, saw three armed and masked figures enter. He pulled and shot, following standard gun training gave to police officers in order to minimize risk to civilians. I... how the hell can that ever be seen as murder?

My case is the fact that america has one of the highest murder rates in the entire world and you have shitty laws RE civilians right to bear arms, Whilst countries that impose regulations on who can carry guns have a far lower rate of death per capita.

The entire invasion argument seems stupid. It just wouldn't happen and there's no situation where you can logically say a passive invasion force would rock up in your country with no weapons, doing nothing. I can't respond to what I would do, but I'm fairly sure the military would involve themselves and want to know what was going on.

And You don't get bank robberies often in countries with decent gun laws. That entire theoretical situation isn't applicable to most countries other than america.

I feel I should make it clear. I'm not saying guns just shouldn't exist. That would be stupid. I am saying that it's best if only people in ACTUAL authority, such as police and the army, bear arms. That means security guards and rent-a-cops don't get them. Only someone being employed by that countries government. It wouldn't solve all the problems of corruption, but it would certainly lower the murder rate.

If that is your case, then you need to show how the two relate. Otherwise I will just say that shoot outs go up at the same time as the icecream man drives around town. It is true, the statistics match up. Of course rather then any real causation, it is just because both are more likely to occur on sunny days. You call a correlation, now prove the causation there. Good luck at what hasn't been done yet by people who legitimately research the subject, by the way.

The invasion was an absurd analogy. Absurd for a reason, but mostly on the whole "hey, people who don't belong here, armed and dangerous". Sorted curious how you'd view that one was all.

Have you looked at crimes rates using legal or illegal guns? We have laws requiring registered weaponry after all. Kinda defeats a lot of your arguements' potency though if the majority of crimes are done with illegal guns.

finally, I don't understand your comment in relation to this situation. The man acted the exact same way as how a police officer would have handled the situation. Down to the not stopping shooting part. He demonstrates that civilians can handle guns with the exact same professionalism, and that police officers are just the same people as everyone else with some training should be obvious to everyone. I also have an added person philosophy about how all people have agency to defend the lives of themselves or others and that such agency should not be limited to reactionary law enforcement. This does include firearms if the person feels it is needed.
Oh, one last little know fact, more accidental kills are caused by police with guns then civilians. The badge doesn't stop poor judgement that comes with the human condition.

As for your second post, that comparison is apples to oranges. It was already explained why GEOGRAPHY AND DRUG LAWS render any such direct comparisons like that utterly useless. I don't mind you taking pride in your country, and I not saying mine is the best, not at all. But there is fundamental issues with the arguments you are bringing up here and circling back around as though you missed the point, like how geography, drug laws and the volume of use drugs have in my country kinda show you either aren't reading it all or just don't grasp the debate here. Regardless, I have to hit the hay, nearing 7 am. I'll reply in the morning if you want to continue.

 

[axlryder]

I'm pretty sure there was no name-taking done by the security guard in this video. I'm disappointed by the misleading title.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Guns being used to defend people from other guns seems to be a non point in any Gun control debate. The gun is playing both a negative and positive role at the same time making it somewhat neutral. Not really seeing it.

I understand perfectly the protocol for weapons. My friends NEVER get this. "Why dont they aim for the leg", "Why doesnt he fire a warning shot". I always inwardly sigh. A gun. Is. Dangerous. It is respected because in any situation where you draw it you are drawing a killing tool. It is a lethal weapon. You dont aim for the leg because hitting a single artery with a bullet will likely kill them slowly while still giving them time to do whatever it is they were doing to merit being shot at. If you fire a warning shot that bullet goes somewhere, it also escalates the situation and makes everyone more likely to be rash and dangerous while at the same time achieving NOTHING of value.

When you draw a gun against another human being. You shoot to kill. Or until you can no longer see that person. Its horrible, and im glad here in Britain we dont usually need our armed police, but its very necessary.

That said i think the US needs guns. Its a crime, drug and culture problem that we dont have because we are an island and our culture isnt steeped in organised drug crime and firearms and really never has been. We also dont border with Mexico. Just saying. So Britain stays gun free and the US stays gun full. I dont see an issue to these two solutions.

The guard did the right thing and followed proper firearms protocol. Seems fine to me. The situation is neither a point for or against the use of guns. Its just an event.

 

[Dogstile]

Honestly, I was hoping he'd just draw his gun and fire one handed at them while still drinking his coffee, before uttering "fuckin' kids" and getting back to reading the paper.

What happened was awesome, but my minds eye has ruined it.

 

[anthony87]

It's always amazing how bad people are at aiming in combat situations. That guard just starts unloading at those guys yet only one of them is hit and is still able to crawl away. What's the acceptable accuracy for policemen in close quarter combat? 30%? I've heard that figure bandied about.

So it's a testament to both the fragility and determination of the human body as well as the negative effects of stress.

I guess he forgot the face of his father. [http://darktower.wikia.com/wiki/Gunslinger#Teachings]

Still, he did his job, which is fair enough.

For that Dark Tower reference...

As for the people complaining about the security guard opening fire, please cop the fuck on. Three armed dudes in ski masks rushed into the building and he opened fire before they could. He did the right thing. Why is this up for debate?

 

[anthony87]

I should have known this would immediately turn into a gun control / anti-USA flamewar...

Can you blame them? It's a topic that will always remain hot. If people feel the desire to talk about this, then we should we let them. Besides some obvious trolling and name-calling, there is no harm. The day we stop debating is the day humanity has given up.

Perhaps, but people really need to learn to pick and choose their fucking battles. Three masked and armed men rush a security guard who draws his weapon and opens fire to defend himself. Doesn't matter if you're European, American, Pro-Gun, Anti-Gun, you'd have to be a total idiot to think that he did something wrong. The only issue here is the idiots choosing to see an issue for the sake of argument.

 

[CCountZero]

>Checks the crime rate in the U.S.

>Checks the crime rate in Australia.

I think I'll stick to the way we do things.

Ok, so, I live in Denmark, so I'm sure we can agree that I'm unlikely to be some gun-totin' redneck.

I don't want guns freely available in my community either.

However, there's a problem which people tend to overlook, which is that in the US, the bad guys already have the guns. If you make a law asking people to hand in their firearms, do you think the bad guys will follow that directive?

The way we do it in Denmark, and the way you do it in Australia, works fine. Because when a security guard has to fix a problem, it doesn't involve dealing with someone who is armed.

In the US, that's not the case.

 

[The Human Torch]

I should have known this would immediately turn into a gun control / anti-USA flamewar...

Can you blame them? It's a topic that will always remain hot. If people feel the desire to talk about this, then we should we let them. Besides some obvious trolling and name-calling, there is no harm. The day we stop debating is the day humanity has given up.

Perhaps, but people really need to learn to pick and choose their fucking battles. Three masked and armed men rush a security guard who draws his weapon and opens fire to defend himself. Doesn't matter if you're European, American, Pro-Gun, Anti-Gun, you'd have to be a total idiot to think that he did something wrong. The only issue here is the idiot choosing to see and issue for the sake of argument.

I agree with you, but there will always be people who will jump on every opportunity to further their own 'cause'. And yeah, the security guard did nothing wrong. I wish that more robbers would be discouraged in this way, I think that it would have a very positive effect on the yearly percentage of robberies.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Seems to be an American security thing... as a member of the British Forces, if I did that I would be very quickly court marshalled, lose my job and probably be jailed! :/

You enter a facility to rob it and get shoot. Well the guard was not about to call a pow pow to see if anyone was hurt and remove them from the battle field.

And armed criminals are not combatants. Also security guards don't have to follow any rules of engagement. They are neither meant to or are paid nearly enough to play Captain America. I will say some of the officers I served under would approve of how he executed this. Focused and controlled.

That's what I was trying to point to...

It doesn't seem to make sense though... in a time of war, were everyone is out to kill each other then we apply rules to it to protect people... but in peacetime, within the confines of our own country borders, then for some reason it is ignored... Logic...

 

[miketehmage]

Well done. Serves the fuckers right. As for people complaining about him shooting at the guy who was crawling, he may have just been unloading rounds to make sure that he KEEPS crawling instead of y'know attempting to shoot back?

Because it's clear that the man was only shot once, and he also lived.

So all in all a very good job.

 

[PatrickXD]

This guy performed his job perfectly. His actions resulted in no deaths, and potentially saved the lives of himself and others.
Good job, guy! I hope he has a nice bonus this year.

 

[Fredrikorex]

Is there a youtube version of the video? I would love to see what happend but the video player on that site isn't working for me.

 

[Rawne1980]

>Checks the crime rate in Australia.

I think I'll stick to the way we do things.

Oh this is fun! I can compare apples to oranges too. Lets see...

>Looks at death by gun rates for the last century for the US

>Looks at it for europe. Wow, two world wars kinda screwed the numbers.

Hmm, seems we are doing well enough. I mean if you are willing to assume nations with different laws, different standards on what equals "unlawful", different population sizes and different histories of gun rights, as well as use a larger inclusive "crimes rate" rather then a more logical "gun crimes" or "gun murders" statistic to one another then why not compare a large nation that hasn't had a war on its mainland to an entire continent that has seen two huge ones. I mean, who needs details, right?

Yep, all those security guards in those world wars really did make a mess with all those guns.

 

[CruisingForBiddies]

>Checks the crime rate in the U.S.

>Checks the crime rate in Australia.

I think I'll stick to the way we do things.

Implying that security guards possessing firearms increases crime rates?
Security guards in Australia are often unarmed simply due to far lower levels of gun ownership, whether it is legal or not, and stricter gun control laws. I feel as if the man in the video is justified to have used his weapon due to the fact he is in America where it is much more likely someone breaking into a store has a gun. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be caught short in that situation.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

but in peacetime, within the confines of our own country borders, then for some reason it is ignored... Logic...

The criminal element. They do not apply any rule to what they do. There are no enemy or political agenda to fight. It is just money hungry untrained people with a gun and therefor a danger to others around them. Although seeing the video, I suspect the guard had some training of some sort. He seems to calm and focused to be any old guy of the street.

That's true... but couldn't it be argued that it is money hungry untrained people we are figting in Afghanistan too?
Also, what about the other side of criminals too... the ones who are doing it out of desparation, or under duress? They are victims themselves!

Not arguing, just adding food for thought!

 

[DugMachine]

Good on the guy! Did his job perfectly and the way it's supposed to be done. Too much sympathy for fucking thieves on his sight it's ridiculous. Yes we get it your country doesn't have guns but USA has bad guys with guns.

And while he may look calm and composed here I think the argument of him needing to think about the situation is fucking absurd. In moments like this you don't iron out all the details, you fucking act. And this guy made his decision and it was the right one. Bravo rent a cop, bravo.

 

[Signa]

If it was anything like that other attempted internet cafe robbery, then this guy did the right thing, no question about it.

Seeing the video shows some guys being stopped before they could actually cause harm, which is admittedly a little off-putting. It's harder to 100% justify shooting someone when their only crime up to that point was acting rowdy with a strange sense of apparel. Do I have any doubt that they were up to no good? None at all.

Are you fucking kidding me? Please read your own post again and get back to me on how many things are wrong with that statement. In the meantime I will be busy banging my head against my desk.

Quite flaming me, human torch. I'm agreeing with the situation. Judging by your quoted post I read, you agree too. I just know the gun control advocates love to be whiners about some of these things. "oh dear, he hadn't opened fire on any innocents yet, so he didn't deserve life-threatening injuries!" I was showing them the ground they have to stand on with those statements, and how shallow it was. Could I possibly could have phrased something better? Maybe.