Customer shoots bank robber in Warren

[mac2766]

69. I understand

You support the action taken by what could easily be an untrained gunman in the situation. An action that could easily have been disastrous.

There is no argument that can be made by me or anyone else against a person who defends themselves in a life-threatening situation. What really needs to be considered is not the outcome, but the implication of the action taken by the shooter. If discharging a weapon in a building endangers the lives of innocent people, should the gun have been discharged? My position is no. Should one individual endanger the lives of one or more individuals to protect himself? My position is no. If I am threatened, I will protect myself, but I will not endanger the lives of others in doing so.

And as for the nit... vigilante / not a vigilante. We can agree to disagree. My opinion is that this was an act of vigilante justice carried out by a very reckless individual.

I strongly support the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms should remain a right... but... on the same note, we as American citizens should also have the right to protect ourselves against those who shouldn't posses a gun. There needs to be a balance between insanity and freedom. I live between two very different types of people. On one side of me is a highly trained ex-navy weapons expert. On the other side, a mentally unbalanced red-neck. Both have guns, as is their right. Which would I feel more comfortable being around when they are brandishing their weapons? Take a guess. There needs to be regulation. If you brandish a weapon, it should be a requirement that you have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of actions taken by you with that weapon. I was trained as a young man by the Indiana Hunters Association, by a friends father who happened to be a Deputy Sheriff, and by the US Military. I have yet to brandish a weapon in a public place, and would never carry one in a public place. That act alone could get a person shot.