California Jewelry Store Owner Fires Back at Armed Robbers: Would You Do the Same?

BOOM!!!!!!!

You mess with me, I'll mess with you. You take an eye, I'll take an eye, a hand and a leg.

This is a photo of ME and my Springfield automatic...

This is a good example of why I support the 2nd Amendment.

I find violence sickening. If you want to have someone's blood in your hands, good for you, I don't really care. But I will never draw a gun out with the purpose to injure another human being no matter what the consequences are. I find killing or even just hurting other people barbaric, and to those telling me that I need to defend myself, I find it more important to 'be the change I want to see in the world.'

Also, how does anyone think it's a good idea for an untrained civilian to pull out a lethal weapon in a public area against people who might or might not be armed and might or might not be willing to fight back?

I would keep on shooting until all the moaning and screaming ceased completely and then I would beat the everloving stuffing out of the creeps with whatever I had available.

Why wait fire first before you become the victim.

I would do it in a second. It is my right to protect my property and my loved ones or employees. The police NEVER respond in time. They are there to collect the data and make the Mayor look good!

I have no problem with requiring people who want to buy/carry guns to go through a basic safety class, which should include things like "know what's behind your target". I'd even be ok with requiring a basic skills and live-fire test, complete with threat and non-threat targets. But provided you pass this and have gone through a basic background check to ensure you're not a felon, criminally insane, or wanted for a crime, then you should be permitted to carry anywhere you go.

Without hesitation.I have a lot of pent up rage towards people who engage in behaviour of this nature,having already been a victim of a similar crime.In that moment,I responded in exactly the same way,succeeding in relieving the thief of his gun and holding it on him until the police arrived.I was working in a high end clothing store at the time and this man came in when I was alone at closing time and tried to steal the days reciepts.I tried to reason with him,talk him down,but he refused and the moment he became distracted,I rushed him,and grabbed his gun away from him and stood there until police arrived.I thought if ever a situation like this happenened to me I would be very agitated but I was surprisingly calm,keeping my head all along

You have to protect yourself and property.

AND I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SHOOT THE SCUM BEFORE HE SHOOTS ME

...only, I'd actually hit him (preferably a non-fatal shot (you can't really express that you forgive them if they're no longer alive) but if that's the only clear one ya get, so be it)....and it's not a felony if you don't have to reload ;-)

Grace to you, Glory to God!

Moron comments from the cops. Yes, we know those rounds can end up anywhere... including those from a cop's gun.

Yes, but I'd be very selective about the gun I used.
For example, The FN Five-seveN is very good at not going through people, reducing the risk of collateral damage.

Without hesitation. No mofo is stealing from me without getting a cap busted in their ass

But the recording of the incident should definitely be featured on some comedy because it's indeed pretty hilarious, especially the scene of them slamming into each other trying to get out!

The first sentence itself is a perfect description.

I'd fire a couple of warning shots, first. But heck yeah, I would shoot at their butt's that's money out of my pocket right there.

Only if I'd have a clean shot( Wouldn't want to waste ammo )

To some exent. I wouldn't let someone pull a gun on me and harm me. If it's me against them, i'll win.

I'm all for guns, but I would only shoot if they attacked me. If they were just stealing something, I'd let the police deal with the matter.

I see a lot of brave talk, what anyone would do in a similar situation is an unknown. I would wagger most talking like Rambo would if actually found in a similar situtation crap on themselves as they hid in a corner shaking.

The point I was making in another post is people are often ignorant of the law. Its one thing to shoot somebody if they're pointing a gun at you or your trying to defend somebody else so threatened. However if the store owner starts chasing the gang bangers and as in this vid then proceeds to continue to chase them and shoot at them long past the time the threat is over then the store owner is in the eyes of the law every bit as much if not more the criminal and can be charged with a felony. It will depends on the luck of the draw if or not DA decides to file charges. The point is you don't want ANY hot head shooting off a weapon putting the public in danger.

No, they weren't trying to attack, so let em go & let the cops deal with it. I wouldn't possible kill someone & have their blood on my hands just because they took something. What's wrong with U people? How many people who rob actually intend to murder? They only have their guns for intimidation. Now, if they were about to open fire & were getting violent, THEN I'd use my gun.

If a crook is armed they are prepared to shoot; therefore, I would/should be prepared to defend my person in a timely manner. I would shoot to kill right away is close quarters as the armed criminal will certainly return with a shot to kill if I politely fired a warning shot to get their attention. One critically wounded crook would cause the remainer to scatter giving me a chance at the broad target of their ass heading out the door.

If I had a gun. Heck yea!

I don't own a gun. I have thought about purchasing a rifle to have at home for purposes of protection, but I have used firearms while in the Army and respect weapons enough that I am unlikely to purchase one unless and until I can assure myself that I will undertake the training that will make me knowledgeable and proficient in use of the weapon I'll have. I'm very definitely not going to keep a gun at my workplace unless I'm confident in my ability to use it. If I am possessed of a weapon, however, and somebody comes onto my premises threatening me, others, or my property, I'm going to be quite likely to use the weapon, particularly if I'm confident I can seriously wound or kill the perpetrator. By the same token, I'd likely be quite averse to starting a gunfight with a number of armed intruders. I don't know what I'd have done were I in the situation of the jewelry store owner in the thread intro, but I'm not going to criticize her choice..

You, sir, are a wise man. I wish more people thought like you instead of deluding themselves into thinking they'd be badass heroes in a situation like that.
I'm not trying to insult Americans by saying this, but your country is sort of unique when it comes to guns and its people's relationship with them, and you sort of stand out because you realize that people overestimate themselves, and that guns aren't toys. You probably think the same way about driving cars as well.
People in general often seem to forget the responsibility that comes with owning and operating a potentially deadly device.
Like I said in my original comment, only people that don't ever want to use guns should actually own them. That includes you, and I salute you for that.

I doubt it .That is what insurance is for Things might just as easily have turned into a situation where an innocent person got hurt. It only takes one person to start shooting back.

Robbing is stealing...taking something from someone else that doesn't belong to you. When you see 5 guys come into a shop and they are going to steal and one has a gun, how does the police know if they're not there to kill you too? Yes, I would use a weapon to protect what is mine and also to make sure they aren't going to harm me or perhaps a real paying customer.

I'd kill them actually.

I personally wouldn't but people can panic, not knowing if they'll be targeted once they see burglars.

That's the reason why I think it would have been a very bad thing if more people had been armed in that Batman shooting, because that situation (gunshots in a dark theater filled with smoke and masked people) would probably have turned out so much worse if everyone saw other people take out their guns in the panic and confusion.

You have a point, but most people don't walk around carrying guns everywhere they go-and in the dark it's unlikely people would have automatically opened fire without seeing who they were shooting at-and if it hadn't been dark, it would have been nice to see the shooter dead and less victims (can't do anything about those already killed) instead of twelve victims and all of the wounded, yes?

Well, it WAS dark, there WAS smoke, there WAS panic and confusion, shots were fired and people killed. I just don't have your confidence that people in that theater that happened to be armed would have remained calm and level-headed, especially if they saw other random people pull out guns. Nobody knew it was a SINGLE shooter when it happened, mind you.
Anyway, I just mentioned it because pro-gun people proclaimed that if more people had had guns, the outcome would have been better. I disagree, with my point being that most people mess up in highly stressful situations, and I wouldn't want them to have guns with them, if you know what I mean.

Well, at least we should have trained personel with guns who work for the movie theater, then. I personally don't own a gun, but I support LAWFUL people to own them. And at the border, law-abiding American citizens are having to use millitary-grade weapons to fight back against drug cartels crossing the Mexican border onto their land-the cartels using military-grade weapons to fire upon the landowners first-and our government has been telling the Minute Men to "run away and hide" upon seeing people shooting weapons who are trying to cross the border. Unfortunately sometimes you have to help yourself because the government isn't doing its job.