Security Guard kicks ass and takes name.

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

What? Hes being complemented for this? In the video you can clearly see that they turn to run as soon as he pulls the gun, but he still keeps shooting them as they are running. He did react quickly, but he also definitly overreacted here. If they are already running, why whould he shoot them? I would complement him if he stopped shooting as soon as he noticed that they were running, but he keeps shooting even at the guy who is crawling out the door.
Captcha: Lets be serious now

I have a class D security license, and I can tell you that Security Guards are told the same thing that cops are. You only draw your gun if you're going to use it. Once you start shooting, you keep shooting until the target is dead or out of your LOS. There are no other options.

Which is why I feel this is kind of 'eh'. You're only supposed to draw your gun as a last resort (I would say that in this case it's justified because the three guys were armed, BUT did the security guard really have enough time to realize that they were armed? I'm not sure...)

Still, shooting at a guy thats crawling away and obviously not a threat anymore? That is pretty low, even if you are instructed to do that.

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! :/

 

[jklinders]

I'm sorry about your experience but I applaud the level headedness of your post.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In the heat of the moment you do not have that luxury. Too many armchair philosophers forget that.

I am happy to see that other people get this. It's just far too easy to make posts from your comfortable deskchair and describe how you would have handled the situation.

After my experience in the supermarket, I re-ran the entire event in my head hundreds of times, things I could have done different, things I should have done different, things I wish I've done different. Heck, one version had me kung-fu kicking the crap out of the robbers, but regrettably it doesn't work that way.

I had the entire police force present there telling me how good a job I did by alerting them, as far as they are concerned, it was text-book perfect. This counts for something, because as a manager I was responsible for the lives of the employees in my supermarket at the time and I was happy to find out that I did was the best thing I could have done. Even if at the time, I didn't put any thought into it at all. You just go with the moment.

The police are saying that this security guard reacted swiftly, decisively and stopped people from getting hurt (with the obvious exception of that one robber, but he made his own bed). That counts for a lot.

This is probably because of my own personal experiences, but robbers get zero sympathy from me. You wanna throw down with a security guard? Great, just be ready when you bump into one that is not a pushover.

I refrained from commenting positively on your actions as I had little notion of the result of them. It was risky but I will agree with police that it was right. You did right by your staff and there is no telling what may have happened if the police were not alerted. It could have gone very very wrong.

There was an inside job robbery of a McDonalds when I was a kid not a days drive from where i live. This former employee killed most of the staff working that shift for the money in the safe. Thankfully that little shit is still in jail but his victims are still dead.

I agree with having no sympathy for the criminals who put themselves at risk in these actions. The guard is not at fault. They are.

 

[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?

 

[suitepee7]

if you throw a drink in a mans face in a bar, and he punches you, do you blame him for punching you, or is it your own fault for causing the incident in the first place.

regardless of the security guards actions, in no way are the robbers in the right. they performed an action which had severe consequences. but they are the ones that took that chance.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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

 

[The Human Torch]

I refrained from commenting positively on your actions as I had little notion of the result of them. It was risky but I will agree with police that it was right. You did right by your staff and there is no telling what may have happened if the police were not alerted. It could have gone very very wrong.

There was an inside job robbery of a McDonalds when I was a kid not a days drive from where i live. This former employee killed most of the staff working that shift for the money in the safe. Thankfully that little shit is still in jail but his victims are still dead.

I agree with having no sympathy for the criminals who put themselves at risk in these actions. The guard is not at fault. They are.

The only thing that I can really tell you is that it's an emotional rollercoaster. You are still shaking from the experience, than you are asked to give a full report at the police station, after which you are brought back to the store where the ENTIRE staff is there because everyone is on high alert and even people on their day off came to see how everyone was. The two highest managers of the supermarket chain were there, patting everyone on the back and giving emotional support and of course there are still investigators walking back and forth collecting evidence.

I cried like a menstruating firehose.
Some people shrug it off, others don't. I really feel for the security guard, maybe he is a cool-headed bastard, but odds are he will have a few sleepless nights after this. It's not something that is casually done.

And people who kill for a little money are the lowest of the low, the damage you do to friends and families of the victims goes well beyond what little in finances was gained. Seeing my mom and girlfriend in tears over my wellbeing, tore me up more than having a gun against my head.

I apologize if I sound a bit overly dramatic, but this event is bringing back a lot of memories.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?