Armed crook enters Texas convenience store, demands money. But clerk is a concealed carrier — and gives crook painful 2nd Amendment lesson

And the delusion is that having the clerks arm themselves would somehow improve the situation. Reminds me of the recent RepubliQ nonsense about arming teachers.

Guns create more problems than they solve. We're a much more violent country than other Western industrialized nations because of gun love.

I wonder if you've considered that the robber might be armed, and what the consequences of blazing away at him might be. Especially if, as you say, he's not right in the head at the moment.

Other countries know all this. It's not even worth debating.

Many cities such as San Fran won't even prosecute for crimes under $1,000.  Many large retailers are shutting their stores in high crime areas.  Those that remain lock up the higher theft items.

So people take things into their own hands.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=videoes+of+shoplifters&type=E211US1079G91652#id=6&vid=13204045b53e04211e65d27be1a33ce7&action=click

Did the gun laws work? If we use Tombstone as an example, the answer would seem to be no. In his book on crime in the Old West, historian Roger McGrath concluded that it was widespread gun ownership that deterred criminality in these areas in which law enforcement had little authority or ability to combat crime.

Let's put aside all the gun love propaganda. A robber is pointing a gun at you. He wants you to do something. You have a gun, but you haven't drawn it. You're not Clint Eastwood.

Just to spice it up, the robber is clearly nervous and possibly hopped up on drugs. He voted for Biden, believes in CRT, and supports a woman's right to an abortion. So he, of course, deserves to die.

Your question is whether you resist, risking your own death or injury, to protect your employer's $100 in the register, or simply hand over the money and hope he leaves without further incident.

In which scenario are you more likely to get shot? Try to get the drop on someone who's already pointing a gun at you, or do what the robber demands? (And yes, obviously, there's no guarantee that he won't shoot you anyway, but I think we can guarantee that he will shoot you if you try to shoot him.)

Think about this rationally, putting aside your politics and prejudices. You might ask yourself, when visualizing this scenario, what the robber's ethnicity is, and whether that influenced your answer.

Darn guns are to blame for everything......

People behind them are not at fault at all.  

  I believe that instead of banning guns, banning the parole/release of criminals and putting them in prison (and keeping them there for their complete sentence) makes more sense. Paroling these criminals or out and out releasing them does not and will not deter these criminals. It is my personal opinion that ALL violent convicted criminals should be put in chain gangs at hard labor. Doing so would be a deterent to future criminals. 

The people who our country puts behind the guns is the problem. According to a new court ruling, that is likely to go up to the Supreme court, even someone that has recently committed domestic violence and has a restraining order against them can carry a gun. 

Jerry, that's a childish and foolish reductio ad absurdum argument. It's like saying that speed limits don't prevent accidents, so we shouldn't have speed limits.

People get into fights, both verbal and physical. If they don't have guns, there may be injuries. If they do have guns, people die. It's that simple. It's not a matter of who's at fault.

I don't even blame the poor idiots who grew up in gun love shitkicker societies/families and think that the way to settle an argument is to whip out a gun.

Let me give you an alternate argument, just in case your own gun love is clouding your judgment. Industrial poisons can be extremely lethal. Plutonium can kill with 100% mortality. Explosives can destroy entire buildings and slaughter thousands of people at once. For these reasons, these and other substances are tightly regulated and ordinary citizens cannot possess them.

How many more murders do you think there would be if there were no such regulations?

As I'm sure you're aware, this isn't really an abstract question. Poisons and explosives are in the same place in the US as guns are in Europe. And even here in Gun Land, no one's advocating for the loosening of restrictions on poisons and explosives.

Here in the southwest people know if you F with someone, try to carjack them, or rob someone you may just get your ass shot.  You don't know who is carrying and don't want to find out.  When we see someone else carrying we ask "where did you get that holster"?

Private citizens should only be allowed to use lethal force in self-defense or to protect their property (not someone else's, as in Kenosha Killer Kid). It shouldn't be as vague as "he's fucking with me."

I wasn't really arguing against legitimate use of firearms, though. I was saying that when everybody's carrying, there's more violence, and that violence is more often lethal. That's a societal cost. And the ostensible benefit is being able to blow them bad guys away.

I think that's more of a masturbatory fantasy than anything else.

Kenosha Killer Kid

Another kevin lie.  Rittenhouse was defending himself and that was the decision of a jury.  At one time he was on his back being attacked by a skateboard