Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

Robbed at gunpoint

174 posts in this topic

From the article:

A Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," was robbed at gunpoint on May 19.

Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming.

According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."

The suspects are still on the loose.

When Chipotle announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News responded with a simple question:

If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun which which to fight back?

read it here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just looked it up and it seems there are quite a few gun shops there, 18 listed, its not a gun free area, so to put a sign up telling people you have no guns in your shop is really asking for trouble. Looked at the crime rates and its not crime free zone so the shop was just attracting the robbers with that sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a 'no guns here' rule at that location could indeed backfire on them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I live in North Carolina about 60 miles from Durham. We have some of the same idiot businesses here. HA! :w00t: maybe they will take the dumb a** signs done now!

Edited by jamesjr191
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

Edited by Exorcist
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

But its ok for the robbers to go around terrorizing and waving guns or knives all over the place and hurting as many people as possible because they have civil rights and we don't want to infringe on that now would we? Pssh, please...

There's nothing Wild West about defending yourself and there certainly isn't anything "cowboy" about it either. I'm glad people are finally saying "enough is enough", we're not dealing with people who are content with robbing you, there's no telling what else may have happened, God forbid a wife and kids get brought into it also... If you know what you are doing and are capable of getting the situation at hand under control like gun owners go through in training, I don't see where there is a problem unless it turns into a hostage situation where you will need professionals to deal with that.

Who's side would you be on in a case like this?

http://eaglerising.com/2835/family-criminals-want-sue-hero-stopped/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

The reason the robbers felt comfortable going in there is because they could be 99.999% sure they would be unopposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But its ok for the robbers to go around terrorizing and waving guns or knives all over the place and hurting as many people as possible because they have civil rights and we don't want to infringe on that now would we? Pssh, please...

There's nothing Wild West about defending yourself and there certainly isn't anything "cowboy" about it either. I'm glad people are finally saying "enough is enough", we're not dealing with people who are content with robbing you, there's no telling what else may have happened, God forbid a wife and kids get brought into it also... If you know what you are doing and are capable of getting the situation at hand under control like gun owners go through in training, I don't see where there is a problem unless it turns into a hostage situation where you will need professionals to deal with that.

Who's side would you be on in a case like this?

http://eaglerising.c...e-hero-stopped/

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.

Totally disagree and for these reasons:

1. http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/05/west-dallas-store-owner-uses-handgun-to-stop-robbery-suspect-brandishing-assault-rifle-other-suspects-remain-at-large.html/

Police took almost up to an hour to show up and in most metropolitan areas this has been the norm, it maybe that they are overloaded with calls, who knows but if your life is being threatened at that very moment and you have the means to stand up for yourself... why not?

2. There hasn't been a case of vigilantes arming themselves that I can ever recall and the closest thing I can think of that ever happened remotely close to that was when Richard Ramirez, the night stalker was caught.

3. Again, gun owners, the responsible ones, go through training and are not just out waving guns around like the criminals are and doing drive by shootings killing children in the process so that kind of thinking needs to be thrown out of the window. This is not about being judge, jury and executioner, this is about saving lives if you are capable and willing to accept that responsibility. I don't think anyone (except the criminals) takes any pleasure in watching someone bleed to death right in front of them but it beats cowering in fear while your wife, child or possibly self gets raped and killed or worse. And forget if they are on angel dust or worse, you may end up in their stomach...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

. We as citizens are protected by the police.

no we are not, and USSC says so, not me.

the rest of your post is effectively turns worthless by this phrase alone. you are wrong on all counts.

we are not punishing anyone, nor taking justice onto our hands, we are stopping a crime and protecting ourselves from that crime, which is NOT a police job.

again refer to USSC for more explanations on police duty. and also see what verb to police actually means, it has nothing to do with protecting,

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

Please stick around here. Seriously.

This topic also shows that guns are used for bad things, surprise surprise. If this was meant to be a "guns are good" thread, than the opposite can be said in the way it was used in this instance, and hence why we are talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the robbers felt comfortable going in there is because they could be 99.999% sure they would be unopposed.

Yeahhhh gooo guns!!! Help rob those stores baby!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.

There was a time i would have backed you up on this, but not anymore. After reading and being told how the Americans live with guns in their lives, its a whole different kettle of fish to our way of thinking in the UK and to be quite honest, although I am anti guns, I can see where they are coming from. It is a way of life we do not experience here. I am just grateful we do not have the gun issues here, thats because here they are illegal and are not part of the household "must haves".

If we ever got in a position where there were gun shops on most street corners and the criminals all carried one, then no doubt the law abiding public would eventually follow suit if the police lost control and were no longer in a position to protect the public at all times.

If a restaurant put up a sign like that in England people would be confused and ask why? we have no gun here, but in the USA people ask why? we do have guns here, thats just inviting the robbers in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time i would have backed you up on this, but not anymore. After reading and being told how the Americans live with guns in their lives, its a whole different kettle of fish to our way of thinking in the UK and to be quite honest, although I am anti guns, I can see where they are coming from. It is a way of life we do not experience here. I am just grateful we do not have the gun issues here, thats because here they are illegal and are not part of the household "must haves".

If we ever got in a position where there were gun shops on most street corners and the criminals all carried one, then no doubt the law abiding public would eventually follow suit if the police lost control and were no longer in a position to protect the public at all times.

If a restaurant put up a sign like that in England people would be confused and ask why? we have no gun here, but in the USA people ask why? we do have guns here, thats just inviting the robbers in.

I'd put up that sign and just sit in the corner with a gun, waiting, hoping, to blow someone's head off.

Sarcasm, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I owned a store I would put a sign up that says something like

" We have guns and we dont call the police"

See how many people rob my store compared to the one across the street with the no gun sign :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

Its really simple. Would you rather rob the people who might shoot you or the people who have a no gun sign?

I know its such a horrible thing to want to be able to defend yourself without the cops around, because we all know cops can be anywhere at anytime with amazing speed :innocent:

And even if some how gun control was so effective that criminals did not have guns then that would still damage my ability to defend myself. What if the robber has a knife? or is just 3 times my size? or breaks in with a gang of people?

The pistol is called the great equalizer for a reason.

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would close for lack of patronage. People do not feel safer under the onslaught of gun owners.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dout it would have much effect on customers coming in. Most people don't have an irrational fear of the common person

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I owned a store I would put a sign up that says something like

" We have guns and we dont call the police"

See how many people rob my store compared to the one across the street with the no gun sign :tu:

If we did that in England, there would be no need to call the police, they would be raiding the place and arresting us for having guns. Probably get done for making threats too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" might be inviting a missile attack?

I doubt if the robbers ever read the sign out front.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" might be inviting a missile attack?

I doubt if the robbers ever read the sign out front.

LOL, thats a big jump from a gun.

Fortunately, nuclear weapons are not carried around by the robbers like guns are, but if they could, I am sure some would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I swear there is another thread on this very same robbery.

The robber obviously went there because he suspected that the cashier would not have a gun.

Like I said in the other thread. If a store shot 4 out of 4 robbers, word would get around and zero robbers, other then perhaps for revenge, would attempt to rob that store again.

I also wonder how the owner would prevent concealed carry? Does he have a metal detector around the door frame? Does he do physical patdowns of his customers? What would he do if a patron stepped up and pulled a concealed pistol and prevented a robbery? Ban the guy that saved your store for life?

EDIT: Oh yeah.... The sign failed.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear there is another thread on this very same robbery.

The robber obviously went there because he suspected that the cashier would not have a gun.

Like I said in the other thread. If a store shot 4 out of 4 robbers, word would get around and zero robbers, other then perhaps for revenge, would attempt to rob that store again.

I also wonder how the owner would prevent concealed carry? Does he have a metal detector around the door frame? Does he do physical patdowns of his customers? What would he do if a patron stepped up and pulled a concealed pistol and prevented a robbery? Ban the guy that saved your store for life?

EDIT: Oh yeah.... The sign failed.

If a store shot 4 of 4 robbers I wouldn't be going in that store anymore. Sounds more like a gun range than a store.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ikr, someone defending his shop is just so horrifying :innocent:

Edited by spartan max2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a store shot 4 of 4 robbers I wouldn't be going in that store anymore. Sounds more like a gun range than a store.

Brilliant. Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.