TrancedShroom said:

Yea, Ima Trooper is right. No guns in banks.

---

Klondike said:

Yes, YOU the customer lose, as I proved in my prior post.

---

Quote:

Who knows what the intentions of hijackers are? It used to be they just wanted a few hostages to demand the release of prisoners, then they would let everyone go. No one on those planes thought their intentions were a suicide campaign. BOTTOM LINE: no one knows what someone's intentions are. Are you willing to trust the rationality and good intentions of a bank robber wearing a balaklava and claiming to have a weapon? I'm not. I'll let you sit there like a coward in the corner and trust in his rational nature and good intentions. Me, I'll blow his fucking head off.

---

ROGER5676 said:

well not many states other than texas let most people wander around with guns.

---

Chubba said:

What comes under federal buildings besides banks?

---

Prisoner#1 said:

TrancedShroom said:

Yea, Ima Trooper is right. No guns in banks.

---

except all those armed security guards they hire, armed
civilians, cops, armored car drives and the bank robbers

---

NickSoapdish said:

Almost every robbery ends without violence, unless some insecure idiot tries to prove that he's not a coward by trying to take him down. That's usually when people start dying.

---

NickSoapdish said:

Klondike said:

Yes, YOU the customer lose, as I proved in my prior post.

---

You proved it? I guess I missed how you proved that losing federally insured money is losing anything.

---

TrancedShroom said:

Prisoner#1 said:

TrancedShroom said:

Yea, Ima Trooper is right. No guns in banks.

---

except all those armed security guards they hire, armed
civilians, cops, armored car drives and the bank robbers

---

Yessssss............I should be one of those guys.

---

I agree and support you 100% in your efforts to be a cop or a robber...

Prisoner#1 said:

NickSoapdish said:

Almost every robbery ends without violence, unless some insecure idiot tries to prove that he's not a coward by trying to take him down. That's usually when people start dying.

---

define violence, for me it's sicking a gun in my face or making
the threat, in such a situation I'll defend my life, it doesnt
mean I'm a hero or 'some idiot trying to prove I'm not a coward'
it means I value my own life more than some dickhead looking for
the easy score, I dont give a shit if he bleeds out in the floor

---

Prisoner#1 said:

it means I value my own life more than some dickhead looking for
the easy score, I dont give a shit if he bleeds out in the floor

---

Klondike said:

Sometimes you get collateral damage. As long as the scum dies it's worth it. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

I value my own life more than some dickhead looking for
the easy score, I dont give a shit if he bleeds out in the floor

---

NickSoapdish said:

I was only arguing against logic like this...

Klondike said:

Sometimes you get collateral damage. As long as the scum dies it's worth it. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

---

Basically saying it's worth the deaths of whichever innocent people happen to be there just to get the satisfaction of capping some robber, and apparently keeping insurance rates a little lower.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

far more collateral from the PD than from the civilians,
civilians almost always know whom is an innocent and who isn't
because they're on the scene when it's happening, cops show up
after the fact and are trigger happy tards in most cases, you
can see the hundreds of of videos of cops shooting innocent
bystanders in situations like that or out of sheer negligence
like a case in texas where they were shooting a snake and killed
a 5yo kid... so ask yourself, is it better that one or two
innocent people are killed from the armed civilian of a dozed
because of an over zealous swat team

---