Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 22 2016 12:04pm)
You're being dramatic at this point. We're not talking about spraying bullets into random crowds. I'm talking about a store owner firing at someone that is trying to break in. I doubt after the first guy drops that anyone else is going to be to eager too loot that place. Hell, even warning shots would be enough to get purps to scatter.
Ya you're right, better to trust people to do only the minimum amount of shooting when fearing for their lives....
The difference is what i'm referencing has already happened.
For reference, the koreans had armed shopkeeps firing thousands of warning shots and actual kill shots, and still were devastated by the riots.
Quote
One of the most iconic and controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly at roving looters. The New York Times said "that the image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands."[79] The merchants, jewelry store and gun shop owner Richard Park and his gun store manager, David Joo, were reacting to the shooting of Mr. Park's wife and her sister by looters who converged on the shopping center where the shops were located.[79]
Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 22 2016 12:08pm)
The impending danger warrants the force. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do but it's certainly necessary when your livelihood is threatened.
If you were in a car with the 5 guys smashing it and 30 guys encircling it would you not slam on the gas and get out of there regardless of how many people you run over?
Mind you I don't advocate spraying bullets into crowds but I fully support gunning down anyone that tries to break in.
That would be fine if it were the only option. Riot gear and gas canisters do the same job to disperse mobs, but the government doesn't like the liability so they let marshall law rule until the fires die down.
This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 22 2016 12:12pm