HCSO: Manager Shoots, Kills Robber

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

SPRING, Texas -- Two people tried to rob a Spring dry cleaning business, but the shop's manager didn't let them succeed, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Harris County sheriff's deputies said Nam-Duong Nguyen, the manager of the $1 Cleaners in the 18600 block of Kuykendahl Road, saw two people approach the store at about 6:35 p.m. Monday.

Nguyen said the two were wearing all black and he saw them pull masks over their faces.

The two crouched down and approached the front door, Nguyen told investigators.

Nguyen said he saw the two reach into the waistbands for an object. Nguyen, who has a concealed handgun license, pulled out his gun and fired toward the men about three times, investigators said.


http://www.click2houston.com/news/21895165/detail.html

[petersjo02]

1. Do you put a notch in your belt for each of your

somebody-killed-a-bad-guy posts?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. No I take scalps instead.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. You too?

One of my daughters got jumped after school. She did not take any true scalps, but did separate a weave from its wearer. Does that count?

[proteus_lives]

42. I making drinking cups from the skulls of my enemies.

Does that count?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Make sure you steam bleach them real good first.

CJD is a real pain in the ass.

[Nostradammit]

2. I LOVE GUN PORN!!!

Keep 'em coming, "Fire_Medic_Dave" - nothing gets me hotter than the news of more gun death!


:loveya:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. You are one sick puppy. But hey whatever floats your boat.

:toast:

[rfranklin]

7. You're the one with the obsession, Dave...

A thousand posts about people shooting people. That's sick.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Is it that many? That is pretty impressive.

[beevul]

21. I guess that dispells the "few hundred" DGU per year myth N/T

[iverglas]

29. hahahahahaha

I guess that dispells the "few hundred" DGU per year myth

Actually, what it does is add to the survey responders -- what was it, 2.5 million? extrapolated to the population at large, of course -- who tell gun militant "researchers" that they believe they would be dead if they hadn't done something with their gunz.

In this case, somebody else is.

I wonder what would have happened if he had flipped a switch that set off a loud horn and flashing lights outside his business instead of pulling a gun and killing somebody ...

[Euromutt]

24. I'm curious: is that kind of judgment reserved for Dave alone?

There are a number of other people with a record of posting copious numbers of stories "about people shooting people" in this forum, after all. Onehandle comes to mind, as does depakid, and MichaelHarris, and I'm sure there a few others. Are they "sick" in your book as well, r., or is it okay when they do it because their purpose is to illustrate that Guns Are Bad?

[iverglas]

30. ah, spurious specious analogies

Do the others you name post and solicit applause for the deaths?

Done and dusted.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Of course to make such an accusation YOU would have proof of me soliciting applause for the deaths?

[iverglas]

59. oh, I know, Dave

When people start revelling in the deaths and dancing on the graves and bathing in the blood, you chide them. Severely.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Come on at least make an attempt to back up your accusation.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Gunzes die? I had no idea. And here is an example of life being

saved through the use of a firearm. I hope mine don't die, I may need them some day.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Another one in Houston. A lot of these kind of posts are happening there.

Again the story was only worth a few lines. This stuff is getting pretty common around Houston.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Well, if the criminals don't learn I guess attrition will work.

[sharesunited]

6. Is this a gun-as-solution-to-guns story? What was in their waistbands?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Citizens with legal guns are sometimes a solution to criminals with illegal guns.

That seems to be the way the cops view it anyway. I guess you could always pass a new law for the ceriminals to disregard.

[sharesunited]

11. No, the prevalence of guns and ammo whatsoever is the problem.

It is a red herring to try to characterize some guns as bad and some as good.

If they are available to be obtained by ANYBODY they are a pollutant.

I hold that truth to be self evident.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. That's beyond silly, guns are inanimate objects they are neither good or bad.

[sharesunited]

13. They are bad insofar as they make any death dealing impulse convenient and efficient to act out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. The old guns are evil post. Where is our canadian friend when you need her?

[iverglas]

31. yeah, yeah, sure, Dave

"They are bad insofar as they make any death dealing impulse convenient and efficient to act out" certainly doesn't mean "Access to them is bad insofar as it makes any death dealing impulse convenient and efficient to act out.".

Nah. It means guns are evil. They have big teeth and they will drag you down to the depths of hell, after sucking out all your blood and spanking all your children. (Sorry, got sidetracked into a memory of the tale of the Clockwork Governess in my mum's 1936 Children's Christmas Annual.)

Keep on keeping on, Dave. You wouldn't want to disappoint.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. You certainly seem to be getting it.

[PavePusher]

15. Is it, or is it not, moral to defend oneself with a firearm?

Simple yes or no question, let's not veer of into hypotheticals.


If it is not moral, whom would you disarm first, the criminals or the Citizens?


If you were attacked by someone with deadly intent, would you defend yourself with a firearm if one was available?
Again, simple yes or no answer, please.

[PavePusher]

26. Still waiting... n/t

[sharesunited]

27. Is it moral to put a loaded gun in the hand of every man, woman and child?

Two can play at that game Pablo.

[PavePusher]

32. That was not the question.

I asked first, but I'll do you the courtesy of answering you pre-emptively.

Of course it isn't. And no-one sane is suggesting it, certainly not on this board. So stop insinuating that anyone is.

Now, will you please answer my questions?

[iverglas]

33. "And no-one sane is suggesting it"

Own the consequences of your actions, chum.

[PavePusher]

38. Will you please make sense? n/t

[iverglas]

39. hahaha!

Own the consequences.

In this case, the fact that someone pretending not to understand what was said to them looks either moronic or mendatious.

[sharesunited]

40. I'll say yes, then. But that is no reason to make guns and ammo readily accessible.

Proliferation and easy access create a threat of such a widespread nature that it constitutes an immoral response to any specific case of moral justification.

[PavePusher]

41. I suppose you'll be on that car ban/restriction next, yes?

Proliferation and easy access to cars causes many more deaths than firearms, even though they are designed solely for transportation of people and property. Obviously they are so defective, abused or difficult to use that their continued employment constitutes an immoral response to any moral justification, right?

Seriously, what is the bright-line thresh-hold for something to tip the scales from an asset to a danger? Do you want to be intellectually consistent on the issue, or are automotive deaths not as tragic as firearm deaths?

[sharesunited]

43. You are disregarding an assumption of the risk inherent in motor vehicles.

One participates in roadway transportation with the knowledge and consent of an associated risk.

Being killed or injured by gunfire is considerably less consensual as a participatory exercise. Unless you want to reduce assumption of the risk to mere existence. I Am Therefore I Might Get Shot?

Do you see a threshold there which can suitably serve as your bright line?

[PavePusher]

47. Well, since my risk of being killed by a firearm is much lower...

than being killed by a car (approx. 1/3rd the risk), it's one I accept willingly. And I certainly don't consent to being killed just beacause I drive a vehicle. I don't see how it's any more, or less consensual than firearms, as I have no control over other drivers, just as I have no control over other gun-owners. It's a trust issue and has been discussed in this forum before.

[iverglas]

52. I wonder how you manage that risk?

Never go anywhere where somebody else might be? Or do you just trust all firearms owners?

You can see cars. How's the x-ray vision going?

About as well as the shrinking/cloaking device for cars, to make them actually somewhat analogous to firearms, I imagine.

[iverglas]

45. so slippery it's slimey

I suppose you'll be on that car ban/restriction next, yes?
Proliferation and easy access to cars causes many more deaths than firearms

Yeah? By people using them with the intent of stealing, killing, injuring, enforcing criminal control over territory and trade?

Where you live? If so, remind me not to visit.

If not ... gosh, I feel all slimey just from clicking on your post. Such, er, intellectual dishonesty does that too me.


But gosh, dressing your, er, intellectual dishonesty up as:

Seriously, what is the bright-line thresh-hold for something to tip the scales from an asset to a danger? Do you want to be intellectually consistent on the issue, or are automotive deaths not as tragic as firearm deaths?

kinda takes it out of the realm of ick right onto the level of leaving one speechless; you couldn't make it up if you tried.

[PavePusher]

48. Wow, your fevered dreams....

The point is, mostly through sheer carelessness, vehicles are associated with far more deaths than firearms. We are very fortunate that people have a psychological blind spot, for the most part, in seeing vehicles as potential weapons, else that number would be substantially higher.

Go wash your self, you'll feel better.

[iverglas]

51. oh?

We are very fortunate that people have a psychological blind spot, for the most part, in seeing vehicles as potential weapons, else that number would be substantially higher.


Really?

How about you try to use a vehicle as a weapon to intimidate someone into giving you the money in their cash register?

Try slipping it in your pocket and taking it along when you burgle a house, just in case there's somebody home.

Will your wife be likely to submit appropriately to your demands if you casually mention every so often that you have a car in the garage, and take it out and wash it from time to time, or threaten to kill her or her kids or her pets with it?


Now, on the other hand, what would happen to the economy of your society if no one were allowed to tote guns around in public? Conversely, what would happen if no one were allowed to drive vehicles on the public highways?

How would you get your groceries if you couldn't have a gun tucked somewhere about your body when you needed to go out and get food? Now consider how you would do it if you had a family of four lived a couple of miles from the nearest food source and weren't allowed to drive your car for the purpose?

Nobody wants those poor rural folks to starve, no matter how much they love their gunz and vote Republican, do we?


Leaving aside the fact that motor vehicles actually are not acquired and possessed and used with the intent of committing crimes or causing bodily harm or property damage, what analogy do you see between the social and economic uses of / need for motor vehicles and the social and economic uses of / need for firearms?


Ever noticed that people in cars SHOOT stop signs rather than driving over them?

Hmm.

[PavePusher]

53. Making up for your absence, I see.

Very entertaining, but I have actual things to do, ta.

[iverglas]

54. snork

Sorry, anyone who clicked. Can't think of anything to say about nothing. Maybe PavePusher will get it up to respond to what I said, maybe he'll keep pretending it isn't there ...

[Hoopla Phil]

19. And that is why the Brits are starting to arm their police. Oh wait. . .

[iverglas]

35. what is?

The fact that the police are mandated to protect the public?

[Euromutt]

23. "Self evident," eh? I have another quote for you

One of Christopher Hitchens' better quotes, in my opinion (from here: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/):

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

When you borrow Jefferson's phrase, what you actually mean is that you want your assertion to be accepted as true without question, and certainly without your having to go to the trouble of making a reasoned argument, preferably with supporting evidence, why it should be thus accepted. Well, I for one refuse to play that game. Not only do I refuse to accept that your assertion is self-evidently true, I refuse--based on actual evidence and personal experience--to accept that it's true at all.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on "self-evident": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evident
I suggest you read and re-read that until you understand what "self-evident" actually means.

[sharesunited]

28. To me it means axiomatic. An assumption from which all observable consequences result.

[Euromutt]

55. Call it what you will, you're begging the question

Begging the question: http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#begging

It simply isn't legitimate to insist that your opponents accept as axiomatic one of the very points that is under contention. There are also good arguments not to assume your assertion is correct. For example, there is plausible historical evidence that the homicide rate in the English Home Counties in the first half of the 14th century was several times as high that of the United States today, despite man-portable firearms not even existing in western Europe at the time!

Then there's the fact that the number of firearms in private ownership in the United States is estimated to have increased by around 50% over the past fifteen years, in spite of which, both the violent crime and homicide rates are around half of what they were in 1991.

If your premise were correct, there should have been much less homicide in 14th century England than there is the United States today, and there should be far more homicide in the United States today than there was in 1990. But neither of those is true. That's pretty strong evidence that your axiom is incorrect. You can "hold this truth to be self evident" until you're blue in the face, but the actual evidence shows it is not--cannot--be true.

[iverglas]

58. this would be germane:

Then there's the fact that the number of firearms in private ownership in the United States is estimated to have increased by around 50% over the past fifteen years ...

if firearms really did commit crimes and kill people all by their lonesome.

Since it tends to be people using firearms to do those things, and since the NUMBER OF FIREARMS OWNERS has increased only slightly during that period (actually, is that number or proportion of the population? either way ...) -- bzzt.

[iverglas]

36. christly jesus

Can you get more disingenuous?

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Legal gunzes is the solution to unlawful activity that the use of deadly

force is legal to stop or prevent.

[slackmaster]

34. It doesn't matter what was in their waistbands

They made a threatening move, and the store owner responded with an appropriate level of force.

[iverglas]

37. Aha

They made a threatening move, and the store owner responded with an appropriate level of force.

Sounds like you think that's self-evident or something.

I'll await Euromutt's response.

[proteus_lives]

44. Dressed in all black and wearing ski-masks.

They were obviously reaching for their March-of-Dimes donation boxes.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Maybe a knife.

I'd still shoot them.

[Euromutt]

20. Target selection fail

I mean, what kind of haul can you possibly expect to net from a business called $1 Cleaners?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. I'm thinking some variety of addict, and it is not something to joke about

Still, better the felon than the storekeeper

A steady need for money added to scrambled wetware isn't a combination that usually yields good judgement...

[S_B_Jackson]

25. More that you'd think....

most dry cleaning places don't accept checks and many don't accept credit cards either (don't want to lose the $ for the transaction fees), so they're dealing in cash only. On Mondays, lots of people are picking up their previous week's laundry at $10-20 per customer (or more), I can easily imagine a that time of day, that the store had a couple of thousand dollars on-hand.

[proteus_lives]

46. Nam-Duong Nguyen did the right thing.

I wish him well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Me too.