man shot after refusing to surrender his beer

[treelizard]

Man shot after refusing to surrender beer
The Arizona Republic

A man was shot early Sunday when he refused to give an attacker his 12-pack of beer.

Phoenix police reported the man suffered four gunshot wounds to the stomach, leg and groin. His injuries were described as serious, but not life-threatening.

The victim was returning home from purchasing the beer about 5 a.m near Seventh Street and Broadway Road when an unidentified man approached him and demanded the alcohol, police said.

When the victim refused, the shooter opened fire with a .45 caliber handgun, police said.

The victim was transported to a local hospital. He is expected to recover, police said.

[Thai Bri]

They should let people carry firearms in America. That way things like this would not happen.

[jubaji]

What happened to the beer?

[jubaji]

They should let people carry firearms in America. That way things like this would not happen.

If the victim in this case had a gun, or the criminal had good reason to believe he would, there is a very good chance no one would have been shot in this case (or better yet, that the criminal would have been).

[treelizard]

They should let people carry firearms in America. That way things like this would not happen.

I happen to know someone who was murdered in Liverpool over a cigarette. He's not the only one.

[darrianation]

Complying in no way shape or form guarantees you safety. Personally I’d give him the beer and work in some form of distraction like dropping it during the transfer and depending on the range grab his gun or go for mine…there are a lot of what ifs here to say what exactly I’d do.

But the bottom line is beer is not worth dieing over (well at least for most of us).

But keep this in mind many violent criminals when asked what they fear the most say it is the armed citizen not the police not jail.

[darrianation]

nice ruse!

[blitz]

They should let people carry firearms in America. That way things like this would not happen.

The way it looks from the passage, he didn't have time to pull his firearm out.

[treelizard]

You can't solve a problem with guns. Period. Infact, you can't solve a problem by weapons either.

I beg to differ.

http://www.coastalpost.com/98/1/18.htm

[bigboywasim]

If you had a gun at least you can try to shoot back. Just give him the beer. If you think he will still shoot you then try to do something. If not then just give him the beer, get away and call the cops.

[darrianation]

You can't solve a problem with guns. Period. Infact, you can't solve a problem by weapons either.

The wicked evil villains of the world cannot be persuaded to be good honest and productive human beings by kind words and hugs however they can certainly be persuaded by goodguys with guns.

[aseepish]

Add Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Kosovo to that list.

[Thai Bri]

I happen to know someone who was murdered in Liverpool over a cigarette. He's not the only one.

It must have been some cigarette to kill all those people for it.

[Piston]

What about:

• Slavery
• Pol Pot
• Hitler
• Stalin
• Mousollini
• Communism

You're right. Bringing those "problems" to an end was far more effective before people resorted to weapons.

I think you're taking what he's said a little out of context. Almost all of those are war-time problems, not domesticated violence.

Slavery however is a different one. The American Civil War, as with most wars America wages was to do with business. One can become very rich with large amounts of unpaid labour at your beck and call, so all those in the rebel states who had attained affluence through exploiting the black man didn't want their free ride taken away. Similarly I doubt those in Washington would wage war on its own people for purely altruistic reasons. If such was the case black people in America would have been equal to their white counterparts after the north won. Such was not the case until the 1960's where it took the words of one man and many others to bring about real change, no matter how much those with the guns tried to stop them.

Also the same with Communism. What do you think would have happened if Gorbachev took the same "Guns solve everything" stance? I wouldn't be typing this right now if he didn't choose to stand out against popular Russian opinion, putting himself at great risk.

America's liberal use of, and love of, guns is, in my opinion, one of the single worst problems the people of the world face, including Americans. Since 1945, a time when American business made a hell of a lot of money out of war, as it has done ever since, America has deposed of 50 different regimes. Even democratically elected ones (through the use of force), i.e. Hugo Chavez. Now I'm not saying Chavez is a saint but he was democratically elected (as far as we can tell) and then deposed by American-backed military members because he tried to take control of the Venezeulan State Oil Company. "America unfriendly people in control of oil?! **** that!" was the American response as it has been throughout recent history.

Americans are dying and will continue to die for American business as long as the national conscious is "Guns solve the problem".

[treelizard]

It must have been some cigarette to kill all those people for it.

Ooh, you're so witty and clever.