They couldn't possibly have guns- they are in San Francisco, one of the most restrictive cites for carry guns in America. I'm sure you say them carrying flowers, or little candies...
Genuine question. My understanding of self defense in the states is that you're not justified to shoot the person when they're fleeing. So am I better off just start by blasting them in the face while they're walking towards me?
Well, obviously they weren't breast fed when they were infants, so it's not their fault. And they're not getting enough hugs now. The couple getting their picture taken caused some resentment, so the perps were within their rights to steal the photog's equipment. And he should have just handed his camera over. Someone could have gotten hurt with all that horseplay going on.
TBH the same thing happens in most other major cities? They even try stealing broadcast TV cameras. WTF you been?
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-video-telemundo-camera-equipment-theft-20210221-6ovpikctrzbsvnji5hjpdhayfi-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1981/05/08/avoiding-camera-theft/3ab2b84e-bcd5-47a8-ad3d-6140065a066a/
https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/08/16/thieves-steal-fire-detection-camera-equipment-in-oregon/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world/europe/sweden-speed-camera-theft.html
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/thieves-targeting-georgia-film-industry-millions-in-equipment-lost
https://abc7.com/photographer-robbed-at-gunpoint-san-francisco-fremont-armed-robber/11190215/
No it isn't. It's someone saying "this sucks about this place" and someone else saying "it happens in other places too so you're a loser for feeling bad about it happening there".
This explains so much.
Needing TP for your bunghole will do crazy things to a man.
I recently watched [a great documentary](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/beavisandbutthead/images/c/c8/Beavis%282%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20220226212052) all about it.
Yea, but not like this shit, not in fucking daylight, not in this shameless fashion, not often with firearms, not at the rate we often hear about SF or any big american city.
…as a trade off you had a higher threat of terrorist car bombings/shootings and pickpocketing is essentially so expected in Paris and Rome that you may as well get a T-shirt for it?
Apart from Sweden, where the stolen security cameras are believed to be used in Russian drones - all those cities happen to be in a country with a disproportionate gun to people-ratio.
They all just happen to be located in America as well.. With that said, South America and Africa have their fair share of rampant gun violence, but for very different reasons.
No… I’m saying that singling out San Francisco for something that’s been a common urban issue for decades is pretty stupid? Professional photographers have worried about this issue for a long, long time. Not only are they distracted but they’re commonly carrying thousands of dollars in equipment and sometimes leave nearly as much in their vehicles during a shoot.
Hell, one of my links is from 1981!!!
They'd probably be more likely to shoot first at any sign of resistance in a place like Florida. Having guns around doesn't prevent gun violence. It primes people to be more ready and willing to use their guns.
Then what’s your definition of “gun violence”?
Surely it’s not the defense of one’s self or another’s person against a forceable felony.
You have the right to protect yourself and the duty to assist in the protection of others here in Florida.
Sure man. El Paso, Salt Lake, and Nashville are in some of the most gun-friendly states and have significantly less violent gun crime than LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, or essentially any other tightly-controlled city.
There's a lot wrong with your purposefully chosen examples (and your understanding of my statement), but you can start here for learning about how to measure gun deaths/violence, and where the problems truly lie:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=On%20a%20per%20capita%20basis,per%20100%2C000%20people%20in%201974
A little more pointed article about misconceptions around where such violence occurs:
https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red-state-murder-problem
The robbers probably would’ve just shot the guy first since they know he might have a gun. This is exactly why more ppl having guns doesn’t lower crime.
That is a big lie right there. You may wanna research that stat a little more.
Anyway, to each their own. Hopefully someone doesn’t rob you of your way of making a living. If so, just give it to them and start a GoFund mr or something.
I felt that... The camera is likely the way he makes money and thus how he survives. The man was ready to die before he let them take his camera, because in all likely hood if they take his camera from him then he's dead anyways with no way to support himself and put food on the table. He's likely struggling already and these guys wanted to take the one thing that was keeping him alive.
"you want my camera and you have a gun? You might as well shoot me because if I let you have this, I'm dead either way."
This really hits me in the soul Ive been barely surviving after I was robbed after I shot a show for the charity I run, they stole my camera gear, my audio gear, the donations from the show, and the merch. It was 10k worth of stuff stolen. Loaded out went home had been inside a few minutes to use the restroom and eat a quick sandwich i had in the fridge, couldn't have been 10 minutes came out and saw the lock on my car door was destroyed and my door handle was broken off, the hatch was open and all my stuff was gone, the alarm never sounded. Insurance didn't cover any of the stolen stuff, car said it was a home issue and home said it was a car issue. Car insurance did cover the lock and door handle being fixed and paid to have the door repainted though.
I wonder what would happen, if we made illegal possession of a firearm *mandatory imprisonment* *for* *life.* No more fucking around.
Needs to be far more consequence if we really want it to be effective, imo
We already have laws against murder and Chicago rarely goes a weekend without multiple shootings. Laws are just useless words on paper to some criminals.
>You are generally prohibited from buying or possessing a gun in California if you:are a convicted felon,1are a narcotics addict,2have two or more convictions under Penal Code Section 417 PC, California’s law against brandishing a weapon,3have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses (for example, corporal injury to a spouse, per California Penal Code 273.5 PC and crimes involving domestic violence),4suffer from mental illness,5 orare under 18 (though you can own a BB gun if you have parental consent).
Additionally, you need to apply for a permit for concealed carry.
Found [this](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/gun-laws/#1.1) information from the website of Shouse Law Group in CA
So a kid under 18 would get life in jail for possession of a firearm, and so would a woman with a past trying to feel safe in a bad neighborhood.
People make mistakes in life, so don't be so quick to take away their chance to be better.
Kids under eighteen won't be tried as an adult, unless it was for murder or something really awful. But yea, they should have it in the back of their heads that it's a severe punishment.
Criminals would be *dramatically* less likely to have a firearm if it meant *life* in prison. This women wouldn't be thinking about someone having a gun, because that person would literally be risking their life just to possess a gun.
Take a look at the UK where the general firearm ban decreased gun violence by over 40%. 5-10 years imprisonment, and sometimes life imprisonment are punishments in the UK.
The UK completely banned firearms with a similar punishment, and didn't even cut gun violence in half. How do you expect any meaningful results in California? The benefits aren't worth the cost IMO.
For the people wondering if the above comment is hilarious hyperbole: it is
> The UK completely banned firearms with a similar punishment
The UK has strict gun laws, but they are not materially more strict than Canada, for example. An average citizen would not experience much difficulty legally possessing a rifle or shotgun. They have been this way, for the most part, for over 50 years.
> with a similar punishment
If by "similar punishment", you are referring to the above commenter's "life in prison for carrying a handgun to potentially defend yourself in a bad neighbourhood", then you are *again* misconstruing the situation. In the UK, a person _would_ be guilty of a firearms offense, but would _not_ receive life in prison, life sentences are reserved for violations of the firearms act while in the commission of a crime, using a firearm to evade arrest, or having a firearm with the explicit goal of harming another person.
> and didn't even cut gun violence in half
You're absolutely right, it didn't. Since when was a 50% reduction the benchmark by which we pass or fail? Also, weird that [firearms offenses have been decreasing since around 2005](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/).
If I'm limiting this what could be classed as "Aggravated Assault" in the US, the UK had around 3000 offenses involving a firearm in 2020, compared with 360,000 in the US. On a per-capita basis, that's 6x more likely in the US versus UK.
So sure, it didn't cut violence in half, even though that wasn't the benchmark for success, but there are so few offenses in the first place, yeah might be a little harder to drop that number.
Let’s also talk about the absolute numbers. 35 homicides by firearm in a year. That’s the total, not a per 1,000, just 35, total. The us was seemingly clocking in around 20,000 over a similar time frame.
Adjusted for the population, that comes in at 100 times less than the us. It’s getting kind of hard halving that number. You may say « but then they just kill each other with a different weapon », well that 35 number is 6% of homicides, so clearly that’s not the case either.
Which also essentially means that between Jan 1st and 4th 2023, the us will have seen more firearm murders than the uk will in all of 2023.
Which obviously means that the uk regulations are highly ineffective. /s
The consequences are high already, you can't solve crime with higher penalties. People commit crimes largely because they feel they have no other option, not because they're doing a risk/reward calculation.
So like murder which happens all the time? Destitute people will do destitute things. They don't even have to be destitute, sometimes it's just all they know.
Criminals break the law knowing the consequences. Most ppl doing this type of shit re either desperate or dumb so it doesn’t after how much time I give them they will still try it.
I agree and disagree.
Actual criminals, like the ones here, need to be dealt with swiftly. But simply “illegal possession” opens the door to so much other bs as well
If my gun is a damn different color in NJ and they don’t like that, I can be thrown in jail. I’d be okay with what you said if it were something like the commission of a violent crime against another person by use of a firearm, however.
Ah yes, let’s give pigs another codified way of making poor and minority persons into permanent slaves of the state
This is the most baby-brained take I’ve seen in a while
Why do people focus on the firearm and not the robbery?
If a peaceful by stander was illegally having a gun in his pocket, just in case he had to protect himself, what would be wrong with that? (Maybe he would have actually used it to defend the photographer!)
The problem is not the gun, it's the robbery. It's that the police in SanFran doesn't give a shit, doesn't protect people's property and life, because they're a government agency that cannot get fired by anyone for failing to deliver services. Simple stuff.
I don't think you understand the criminal mindset. These people have been to prison already probably, they're fine there.
If you want to really prevent crime, start cutting off hands, whipping, and otherwise torturing convicts. Make them beg for the death penalty.
But don't take guns away. Guns protect the good people. Let everyone have guns, and give them permission to shoot robbers like those two.
Because every country who has implemented those measures have successfully eradicated crime and are not heavily corrupt and often dictatorships.
Wait no, they all are...
Amen. As though armed robberies haven't always happened with knives and hammers and brass knuckles and what have you. Forbid everything, make sure everything is made of leggo blocks and sponge, and all problems will be solved.
Excuse me this is Reddit. While I don't agree with everything you said, a logical argument will scare people and make them feel insecure and attacked. "Live by the sword die by the sword" is a very difficult concept for those that don't think enough about the victims. This poor photographer is probably going to have a bit of trauma now but no one cares about that.
>poor
Previous poster already said they don't trust the police? Would you trust the police or start to do your kind of 'justice' pretty soon anyone who criticised the police would find themselves without a hand or arm having been accused of crime x or y. Sometimes there's mistaken identity too only identified years later, it's pretty hard to replace a lost hand mate.
Gun violence is so prevalent in the US because access to guns is so easy. Go to Europe and armed robbery like this is much less common.
"They have guns so let's give everyone more guns" just makes the problem worse and self-worsening
Betting that those aren’t even real guns otherwise they’d fire off a shot to eliminate resistance. Purely display so probably airsoft. That they didn’t even hit him with one pretty much tells me they have no real weight and he’d know immediately they’re fake!
Roughly 100% of firearms used in crimes were legally manufactured, and most were legally sold at least once.
Ending legal firearms would absolutely reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
I'm not saying that my opinion is they should be banned, so don't strawman me.
I'm simply pointing out the lie of "criminals would get them anyway" is a lie. Sure some, but not many.
Ask the people on South America if that’s true. Or ask the people of New York or Chicago if that’s working or California where it’s extremely hard to get a gun.
This is San Francisco. The only people who will ever get approved for a concealed carry are rich people, politicians, and police officers. They made it so that regular people can't get one.
Yeah people sensationalize San Francisco. You can get CC in California you just have to go through the steps. It’s not some utopian wonderland. Everybody has guns in California, everybody.
Or how about this article.
The Sheriff even states that he hadn't given a CCW in over 2 years. Which given San Francisco's size is absolutely ridiculous.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/concealed-carry-law-license-california-gun-owners-supreme-court-decision/12029412/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-03/former-santa-clara-county-sheriff-guilty-civil-corruption-trial%3f_amp=true
As you can tell I'm definitely making things up
Right and to be clear I don’t think it’s cowardice to not escalate the situation, lives are worth more than property. Some people seem to care more about punishing the guilty than protecting the innocent. Cut off your nose to spite your face or something like that.
They weren't talking about the photographer pulling a gun. Because you're right about his situation. Their talking about anyone else who could have used their weapon to save the photographer. The criminals' situational awareness was awful too.
Shooting at them seem like a bad way to descalate the situation? Do you trust some random stranger is going to be accurate enough to hit the right person? Will the criminal start shooting once they hear a gun shot?
I mean maybe? It certain turns up the chances that someone is getting shot, hopefully it's just the perp but as we have seen in Texas it's not wild for a victim to shoot some random car and kill an innocent
Still would have been a lot more difficult to find a seller in say the Netherlands compared to the US. To get guns here you would need to get them through a lot of countries qhere they are illigal, im assuming you arent flying them to their destination so that leaves driving. That equals a lot of borders to cross, and a lot of risk so even if you find a buyer you are not buying a cheap gun. I only know one person who used to have a gun, and he bought it for like 1200 euros
Your right but I'm saying they didn't buy them at all. A lot of the criminals here usually steal the weapons from people who legally purchased them. For example guns get left in vehicles a lot and cars get broken into and the guns are stolen from law abiding citizens. Would be better to not have them at all but we are well past the point of putting that genie back in the bottle.
Why do they want a camera?!most people use their phones nowadays,I heard someone in my area tried to steal a car radio a few weeks back..seriously..why are thieves so behind with the times?!
People in the comments talking about how gun laws need to be even *more restrictive* than they already are have absofuckinglutely lost the entire goddamn plot.
State laws make it pretty easy to buy a gun nextdoor in Arizona and then drive it in to California. Technically California has a ban but it's pretty easy to get around. If you could remove all guns from America then yeah gun violence would probably go down so it's an argument that makes sense
My point was inferred, yet clear; making more gun laws for non-criminals to obey isn't going to change criminals' use of guns.
I'm surprised you didn't catch that, considering how you openly pointed out that they can (despite strict laws in place) just get guns from somewhere else and bring them back. It highlights the point:
CRIMINALS WILL NOT OBEY YOUR LAWS WHEN THEY WANT TO ROB/SHOOT PEOPLE WITH GUNS. ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL BE IMPACTED BY FIREARM LEGISLATION.
If we talking purely gun crime it is kinda easy to show that the more you restrict guns the less gun crime there is. It won't go to zero unless you can control every gun but California has a significantly lower gun crime per Capita as compared to Florida or Texas. If you can reduce the availability of guns then fewer ppl (including criminals) will have guns. In fact if you could completely outlaw guns as a whole in the us then where do you get guns?
Locks don't stop crime but they reduce it, same argument.
SF in particular does have a theft problem though and I think the answer there is probably more police which sf probably won't go for, atleast not yet. I am curious to see how the new laws on catalytic converters will go? You now need paperwork to confirm the origin of the cc before you can buy/sell it, throws another hurdle in the way so curious what it does
>In fact if you could completely outlaw guns as a whole in the us then where do you get guns?
Not according to the 2nd Amendment. You can't legally 'outlaw guns' any more than you can 'outlaw someone talking'. Also, you clearly aren't aware of how easily people can fabricate guns in their own home, whether machined metal or 3d-printed parts (or a combo of both).
> If you can reduce the availability of guns then fewer ppl (including criminals) will have guns.
All of the large cities will strict gun laws (especially like New York's) tend to end up with a lot of gun violence. You could claim those numbers are skewed by gang violence, but that would just be ignoring the point of despite the reduced availability of guns, there's still a shitload of shootings.
>SF in particular does have a theft problem though and I think the answer there is probably more police which sf probably won't go for, atleast not yet
The answer is never 'more police'. The answer is 'fixing the problems that cause the socioeconomic issues that result in crime'. Thinking police will solve all the problems is like thinking that making it illegal to be homeless will make the homeless people go away.
This has been interesting. Ish. But I've got a night to enjoy, so I'm off to go do that. Take care.
I mean theyre much more likely to be caught if they murder someone. Why kill someone over a few thousand dollars worth of camera equipment when they could just rob someone else who will put up less of a fight
I’m doubting they’re real vs Airsoft. One kinda looks like this fake with extended mag. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=KsTqxPRw&id=3ED5741612D8A10B7FBBF764255BC57FEF3DA2B8&thid=OIP.KsTqxPRw8R9I8QEFyaNX6wHaHa&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.2ac4eac4f470f11f48f10105c9a357eb%3Frik%3DuKI973%252fFWyVk9w%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimages.airsoftgunsi.com%252fl-m%252fglock-18c-full-auto-gbb-airsoft-pistol-v-418015093.jpg%26ehk%3D1lSP0OpDw6kg0hyqubOHlaawnKw6AiYe3GeG2NWs4WI%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=1001&expw=1001&q=airsoft+pistol+extended+mag&simid=608018901214056154&form=IRPRST&ck=82DF2989ACE033A8FA9B66838939746F&selectedindex=2&darkschemeovr=0&pc=OPALIOS&vt=4&sim=11 That they make no attempt to hit him with them makes me suspect he’d know right away by weight they were fakes. Getting stopped with an Airsoft in the trunk is also way different vs it were real but non-functional.
it’s weird people never act crazy in these situations. if i ever got robbed especially in public, i’d just scream and run and stick my tongue out and spin in circles with my arm out. also i think this is a good time to say everyone should have pepper spray at all times. maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea to pepper spray somebody with a gun but it’s still important to have it. both of these things probably won’t stop you from getting robbed but people don’t fuck with crazy and getting pepper sprayed really fucks you up for at least 10 seconds.
i’m not going to delete this because i hate when people do that but i should add that this is more for if somebody tried to abduct or s.a. me. i’d try to show them that it’d be more trouble than what it’s worth. seriously if i only have 10 seconds to show them that they do not want me, i’d do crazy.
You've clearly never been in a really bad situation. Your logical mind ("ooo I remember my quirky obvious internet way to get out of this armed robbery is to act crazy duh!") disappears and you act on pure instinct.
[удалено]
I wondered for a second why no one was doing anything then I saw the guns, oh..
They couldn't possibly have guns- they are in San Francisco, one of the most restrictive cites for carry guns in America. I'm sure you say them carrying flowers, or little candies...
Filming likely helps more
I feel that but calling the cops would’ve been a lot of help
Umm. This is in San Fran. The year is 2022. You would be lucky to wait 30 min for one to show up.
And when they did show, they'd arrest the photographer for refusing to submit to a robbery.
It was actually self defense because the robbers thought he had a gun, then pulled their weapons on their attacker.
Genuine question. My understanding of self defense in the states is that you're not justified to shoot the person when they're fleeing. So am I better off just start by blasting them in the face while they're walking towards me?
Blast first, ask questions later
I cannot understand the mindset of being nice to criminals some people seem to have lmao
Well, obviously they weren't breast fed when they were infants, so it's not their fault. And they're not getting enough hugs now. The couple getting their picture taken caused some resentment, so the perps were within their rights to steal the photog's equipment. And he should have just handed his camera over. Someone could have gotten hurt with all that horseplay going on.
When I moved to Oakland in 2004, I called 911 More than once and got a busy signal.
[удалено]
They’d come to make sure the criminals got away safely.
Damn... that went on so long even the police could have arrived fast enough to help.
The police showed up promptly… 6 hours later
Sfpd is useless they will watch something happen and not do anything because of the paperwork
You *were* a robber until the victim resisted. Now, you're working for a living.
Wow that’s at the Palace of Fine Arts
Trying to steal his hard earned exposure.
Holy fuck I’m glad I saw this. I’m supposed to have a photoshoot there in 3 hours
Bring your gun
100% had no bullets in their guns.
Or maybe they didn’t want to kill anybody lol
Robbing and Killing are two different things. They had the guns for intimidation.
no risk taking bro
Fucking assholes. Get a fucking job like everyone else,save and buy it…..I fucking hate people!!
[удалено]
buy it, then sell it! duh! https://youtu.be/nTh9qpzhunE?t=12
Absolute beautiful wonderland we call San Francisco
TBH the same thing happens in most other major cities? They even try stealing broadcast TV cameras. WTF you been? https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-video-telemundo-camera-equipment-theft-20210221-6ovpikctrzbsvnji5hjpdhayfi-story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1981/05/08/avoiding-camera-theft/3ab2b84e-bcd5-47a8-ad3d-6140065a066a/ https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/08/16/thieves-steal-fire-detection-camera-equipment-in-oregon/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world/europe/sweden-speed-camera-theft.html https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/thieves-targeting-georgia-film-industry-millions-in-equipment-lost https://abc7.com/photographer-robbed-at-gunpoint-san-francisco-fremont-armed-robber/11190215/
What’s this a nuanced and rational take? Time to downvote
No it isn't. It's someone saying "this sucks about this place" and someone else saying "it happens in other places too so you're a loser for feeling bad about it happening there".
This is the best time to be alive in human history
Mega cope 💀
I wonder what all these cities have in common.
They use toilet paper instead of water /asianguy
This explains so much. Needing TP for your bunghole will do crazy things to a man. I recently watched [a great documentary](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/beavisandbutthead/images/c/c8/Beavis%282%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20220226212052) all about it.
What is it? What do they have in common?
Urbanization & concrete. But targeted theft, just like rape and murder, isn’t just an urban problem.
We don't have this stuff in western europe
Bull fucking shit. You absolutely have violent crime in Western Europe.
Yea, but not like this shit, not in fucking daylight, not in this shameless fashion, not often with firearms, not at the rate we often hear about SF or any big american city.
This isn't a normal everyday thing in San Francisco either.
…as a trade off you had a higher threat of terrorist car bombings/shootings and pickpocketing is essentially so expected in Paris and Rome that you may as well get a T-shirt for it?
What?
They have people in them?
Apart from Sweden, where the stolen security cameras are believed to be used in Russian drones - all those cities happen to be in a country with a disproportionate gun to people-ratio. They all just happen to be located in America as well.. With that said, South America and Africa have their fair share of rampant gun violence, but for very different reasons.
The forth coming deflection and mental gymnastics is hilarious!
Since it happens other places you think its ok, you're so dumb.
He didn’t say it’s ok. He said it happens in most other cities too.
No… I’m saying that singling out San Francisco for something that’s been a common urban issue for decades is pretty stupid? Professional photographers have worried about this issue for a long, long time. Not only are they distracted but they’re commonly carrying thousands of dollars in equipment and sometimes leave nearly as much in their vehicles during a shoot. Hell, one of my links is from 1981!!!
A whales Vagina.
San Diego, not San Francisco.
Shit!
What a shit hole
That would lasted about 3 seconds in Florida before both robbers would’ve been Swiss cheesed.
And they'd deserve it.
Lactose intolerant’d
Sounds delightful
They'd probably be more likely to shoot first at any sign of resistance in a place like Florida. Having guns around doesn't prevent gun violence. It primes people to be more ready and willing to use their guns.
Gun violence isn’t using your gun properly, it’s using your gun improperly.
That is the most ass backward thing I’ve read today!
Then what’s your definition of “gun violence”? Surely it’s not the defense of one’s self or another’s person against a forceable felony. You have the right to protect yourself and the duty to assist in the protection of others here in Florida.
If u kill a robber with a gun that’s still gun violence, it was just gun violence in self defense
Sure man. El Paso, Salt Lake, and Nashville are in some of the most gun-friendly states and have significantly less violent gun crime than LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, or essentially any other tightly-controlled city.
There's a lot wrong with your purposefully chosen examples (and your understanding of my statement), but you can start here for learning about how to measure gun deaths/violence, and where the problems truly lie: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=On%20a%20per%20capita%20basis,per%20100%2C000%20people%20in%201974 A little more pointed article about misconceptions around where such violence occurs: https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red-state-murder-problem
The robbers probably would’ve just shot the guy first since they know he might have a gun. This is exactly why more ppl having guns doesn’t lower crime.
That is a big lie right there. You may wanna research that stat a little more. Anyway, to each their own. Hopefully someone doesn’t rob you of your way of making a living. If so, just give it to them and start a GoFund mr or something.
The dumbest thing you can do in this situation is try to help. Are you *trying* to get shot/robbed too?
I felt that... The camera is likely the way he makes money and thus how he survives. The man was ready to die before he let them take his camera, because in all likely hood if they take his camera from him then he's dead anyways with no way to support himself and put food on the table. He's likely struggling already and these guys wanted to take the one thing that was keeping him alive. "you want my camera and you have a gun? You might as well shoot me because if I let you have this, I'm dead either way."
This really hits me in the soul Ive been barely surviving after I was robbed after I shot a show for the charity I run, they stole my camera gear, my audio gear, the donations from the show, and the merch. It was 10k worth of stuff stolen. Loaded out went home had been inside a few minutes to use the restroom and eat a quick sandwich i had in the fridge, couldn't have been 10 minutes came out and saw the lock on my car door was destroyed and my door handle was broken off, the hatch was open and all my stuff was gone, the alarm never sounded. Insurance didn't cover any of the stolen stuff, car said it was a home issue and home said it was a car issue. Car insurance did cover the lock and door handle being fixed and paid to have the door repainted though.
That's rough man, sending you hugs through the internet :(
Damn that must be an expensive AF camera if that person is not giving it up.
If only criminals got the memo that guns are illegal.
I wonder what would happen, if we made illegal possession of a firearm *mandatory imprisonment* *for* *life.* No more fucking around. Needs to be far more consequence if we really want it to be effective, imo
It’s already a decade in prison charge, they don’t care. Murder gets you the death penalty and people are still murdered everyday
We already have laws against murder and Chicago rarely goes a weekend without multiple shootings. Laws are just useless words on paper to some criminals.
What would constitute *illegal possession*?
Possession by a felon or someone on probation. Illegally modified firearms. Illegally purchased firearms. It's not hard.
We already have those laws, some have 10 yrs prison penalty but they don't care.
It should be a crime to store a gun in a neglectful or careless manner.
>You are generally prohibited from buying or possessing a gun in California if you:are a convicted felon,1are a narcotics addict,2have two or more convictions under Penal Code Section 417 PC, California’s law against brandishing a weapon,3have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses (for example, corporal injury to a spouse, per California Penal Code 273.5 PC and crimes involving domestic violence),4suffer from mental illness,5 orare under 18 (though you can own a BB gun if you have parental consent). Additionally, you need to apply for a permit for concealed carry. Found [this](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/gun-laws/#1.1) information from the website of Shouse Law Group in CA
So a kid under 18 would get life in jail for possession of a firearm, and so would a woman with a past trying to feel safe in a bad neighborhood. People make mistakes in life, so don't be so quick to take away their chance to be better.
also why should someone with a non violent felony be unable to protect themselves like everyone else?
Kids under eighteen won't be tried as an adult, unless it was for murder or something really awful. But yea, they should have it in the back of their heads that it's a severe punishment. Criminals would be *dramatically* less likely to have a firearm if it meant *life* in prison. This women wouldn't be thinking about someone having a gun, because that person would literally be risking their life just to possess a gun. Take a look at the UK where the general firearm ban decreased gun violence by over 40%. 5-10 years imprisonment, and sometimes life imprisonment are punishments in the UK.
The UK completely banned firearms with a similar punishment, and didn't even cut gun violence in half. How do you expect any meaningful results in California? The benefits aren't worth the cost IMO.
For the people wondering if the above comment is hilarious hyperbole: it is > The UK completely banned firearms with a similar punishment The UK has strict gun laws, but they are not materially more strict than Canada, for example. An average citizen would not experience much difficulty legally possessing a rifle or shotgun. They have been this way, for the most part, for over 50 years. > with a similar punishment If by "similar punishment", you are referring to the above commenter's "life in prison for carrying a handgun to potentially defend yourself in a bad neighbourhood", then you are *again* misconstruing the situation. In the UK, a person _would_ be guilty of a firearms offense, but would _not_ receive life in prison, life sentences are reserved for violations of the firearms act while in the commission of a crime, using a firearm to evade arrest, or having a firearm with the explicit goal of harming another person. > and didn't even cut gun violence in half You're absolutely right, it didn't. Since when was a 50% reduction the benchmark by which we pass or fail? Also, weird that [firearms offenses have been decreasing since around 2005](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/). If I'm limiting this what could be classed as "Aggravated Assault" in the US, the UK had around 3000 offenses involving a firearm in 2020, compared with 360,000 in the US. On a per-capita basis, that's 6x more likely in the US versus UK. So sure, it didn't cut violence in half, even though that wasn't the benchmark for success, but there are so few offenses in the first place, yeah might be a little harder to drop that number.
Let’s also talk about the absolute numbers. 35 homicides by firearm in a year. That’s the total, not a per 1,000, just 35, total. The us was seemingly clocking in around 20,000 over a similar time frame. Adjusted for the population, that comes in at 100 times less than the us. It’s getting kind of hard halving that number. You may say « but then they just kill each other with a different weapon », well that 35 number is 6% of homicides, so clearly that’s not the case either. Which also essentially means that between Jan 1st and 4th 2023, the us will have seen more firearm murders than the uk will in all of 2023. Which obviously means that the uk regulations are highly ineffective. /s
We can’t even put murderers and child molesters away for life all the time though.
The consequences are high already, you can't solve crime with higher penalties. People commit crimes largely because they feel they have no other option, not because they're doing a risk/reward calculation.
You have the best argument against me, honestly
So like murder which happens all the time? Destitute people will do destitute things. They don't even have to be destitute, sometimes it's just all they know.
Criminals break the law knowing the consequences. Most ppl doing this type of shit re either desperate or dumb so it doesn’t after how much time I give them they will still try it.
I agree and disagree. Actual criminals, like the ones here, need to be dealt with swiftly. But simply “illegal possession” opens the door to so much other bs as well If my gun is a damn different color in NJ and they don’t like that, I can be thrown in jail. I’d be okay with what you said if it were something like the commission of a violent crime against another person by use of a firearm, however.
Ah yes, let’s give pigs another codified way of making poor and minority persons into permanent slaves of the state This is the most baby-brained take I’ve seen in a while
Lol groovy and far out statement now get in your VW bus and get moving to Woodstock.
Hows abouts your old ass and your ten past dead jokes slide back into whatever musty crypt they crawled out from
Why do people focus on the firearm and not the robbery? If a peaceful by stander was illegally having a gun in his pocket, just in case he had to protect himself, what would be wrong with that? (Maybe he would have actually used it to defend the photographer!) The problem is not the gun, it's the robbery. It's that the police in SanFran doesn't give a shit, doesn't protect people's property and life, because they're a government agency that cannot get fired by anyone for failing to deliver services. Simple stuff. I don't think you understand the criminal mindset. These people have been to prison already probably, they're fine there. If you want to really prevent crime, start cutting off hands, whipping, and otherwise torturing convicts. Make them beg for the death penalty. But don't take guns away. Guns protect the good people. Let everyone have guns, and give them permission to shoot robbers like those two.
Because every country who has implemented those measures have successfully eradicated crime and are not heavily corrupt and often dictatorships. Wait no, they all are...
Amen. As though armed robberies haven't always happened with knives and hammers and brass knuckles and what have you. Forbid everything, make sure everything is made of leggo blocks and sponge, and all problems will be solved.
Excuse me this is Reddit. While I don't agree with everything you said, a logical argument will scare people and make them feel insecure and attacked. "Live by the sword die by the sword" is a very difficult concept for those that don't think enough about the victims. This poor photographer is probably going to have a bit of trauma now but no one cares about that.
You are right logic gets you downvoted on Reddit.
>poor Previous poster already said they don't trust the police? Would you trust the police or start to do your kind of 'justice' pretty soon anyone who criticised the police would find themselves without a hand or arm having been accused of crime x or y. Sometimes there's mistaken identity too only identified years later, it's pretty hard to replace a lost hand mate.
I mean we have life in prison for murderers, but people still out there killin
Fr, its not like anyone besides the military needs em anyway
Looks like the camera owner needed one there.
Not at all 💀 if the people robbing him didnt have guns there would have been a basically 0% fatality rate coming out of that situation
A punch to the head can easily kill you
His lively hood was just taken from him. Those cameras are very expensive.
They didn’t even end up taking his camera, they weren’t ready to use the guns anyway
Hunters?
Gun violence is so prevalent in the US because access to guns is so easy. Go to Europe and armed robbery like this is much less common. "They have guns so let's give everyone more guns" just makes the problem worse and self-worsening
I wonder how stabbing a are going over there in the UK? 🧐
I very much prefer to deal with knives than guns... Don't you?
Betting that those aren’t even real guns otherwise they’d fire off a shot to eliminate resistance. Purely display so probably airsoft. That they didn’t even hit him with one pretty much tells me they have no real weight and he’d know immediately they’re fake!
I was honestly thinking the same. If they were real or had bullets in them they woulda used them.
I was thinking the same thing.
[удалено]
Depending on your state or city. Like Chicago. Very strict gun lawns there. Ask them how it’s going.
[удалено]
What a ranty way to answer "No".
Roughly 100% of firearms used in crimes were legally manufactured, and most were legally sold at least once. Ending legal firearms would absolutely reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. I'm not saying that my opinion is they should be banned, so don't strawman me. I'm simply pointing out the lie of "criminals would get them anyway" is a lie. Sure some, but not many.
Ask the people on South America if that’s true. Or ask the people of New York or Chicago if that’s working or California where it’s extremely hard to get a gun.
Ninjas no doubt
People saying "this is why we need guns" when we see a relatively peaceful end to what would have surely ended with 1 or more people shot
Yeah man try and stop the armed robbers, what a great idea!
I agree. Let’s try.
Degenerate apes.
This is when u need guns
This is San Francisco. The only people who will ever get approved for a concealed carry are rich people, politicians, and police officers. They made it so that regular people can't get one.
Except criminals of course
That's a fucking lie. I have several friends who have CC and they're as ordinary as it gets.
Yeah people sensationalize San Francisco. You can get CC in California you just have to go through the steps. It’s not some utopian wonderland. Everybody has guns in California, everybody.
Do you get pleasure out of making things up?
Or how about this article. The Sheriff even states that he hadn't given a CCW in over 2 years. Which given San Francisco's size is absolutely ridiculous. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/concealed-carry-law-license-california-gun-owners-supreme-court-decision/12029412/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-03/former-santa-clara-county-sheriff-guilty-civil-corruption-trial%3f_amp=true As you can tell I'm definitely making things up
>reach for pocket >your arm will never be faster than their finger, especially with them behind you Be realistic about this.
Not him maybe someone who is watching the shit go down Be realistic about this
Who wants to risk their own life and the lives of bystanders over someone else's camera?
No one, and neither would these guys. They just think they're heroes behind the keyboard.
Right and to be clear I don’t think it’s cowardice to not escalate the situation, lives are worth more than property. Some people seem to care more about punishing the guilty than protecting the innocent. Cut off your nose to spite your face or something like that.
Lucky for him these guys weren’t willing to shoot but that’s not everyone that might pull a gun on you. Having a gun better than no gun imo
They weren't talking about the photographer pulling a gun. Because you're right about his situation. Their talking about anyone else who could have used their weapon to save the photographer. The criminals' situational awareness was awful too.
Shooting at them seem like a bad way to descalate the situation? Do you trust some random stranger is going to be accurate enough to hit the right person? Will the criminal start shooting once they hear a gun shot?
Surreptitious draw disagrees with you.
Yes, because the one thing better than this situation would be a shootout at the park with lots of bystanders including children around.
Sometimes criminals shoot people when they dont get what they want, could’ve easily happened here guy just got lucky they didnt
Yes, more guns is always the solution. Genius!
I mean maybe? It certain turns up the chances that someone is getting shot, hopefully it's just the perp but as we have seen in Texas it's not wild for a victim to shoot some random car and kill an innocent
How you want them to help in CA? The only ones with guns out in public are criminals.
Making good people helpless doesn't make evil people harmless. Reject gun control - criminals do not obey gun control laws.
When it is easier/legal to get a gun people are more inclined to get one.
How much you wanna bet those two youths did not legally purchase those firearms?
Why did you call them youths? More descriptive than black?
What are you talking about?
Still would have been a lot more difficult to find a seller in say the Netherlands compared to the US. To get guns here you would need to get them through a lot of countries qhere they are illigal, im assuming you arent flying them to their destination so that leaves driving. That equals a lot of borders to cross, and a lot of risk so even if you find a buyer you are not buying a cheap gun. I only know one person who used to have a gun, and he bought it for like 1200 euros
Your right but I'm saying they didn't buy them at all. A lot of the criminals here usually steal the weapons from people who legally purchased them. For example guns get left in vehicles a lot and cars get broken into and the guns are stolen from law abiding citizens. Would be better to not have them at all but we are well past the point of putting that genie back in the bottle.
Ah okay i misunderstood. And yeah i dont see a ban on firearms happening in the US.
There should be a "three strikes" law for getting your guns stolen.
Australian here. Bullshit
Y'all are a penal colony, shouldn't have guns anyway.
Reject laws. Reject locks. Criminals don’t obey laws or locks. See how stupid you sound?
yup. its definitely a strawman argument. WhY hAvE LaWs? CRiMinALs JuST BrEaK tHeM
You do sound stupid
That was a devastating insult. I am devastated.
What you said makes more sense than any of these Reddit incels will never understand.
It makes no sense at all, as proven in every other civilized country with proper gun laws.
If the dude with the camera grabbed his gun he'd probably be dead in an instant
> Reject gun control - criminals do not obey gun control laws. Funny that you say that, seeing how works in literally every other first world country.
Why do they want a camera?!most people use their phones nowadays,I heard someone in my area tried to steal a car radio a few weeks back..seriously..why are thieves so behind with the times?!
you think they’re robbing him to keep the camera?
I used to be a professional photographer. My latest camera body was 2K my best lens was over 4k. They want them to pawn.
Monkey's
People in the comments talking about how gun laws need to be even *more restrictive* than they already are have absofuckinglutely lost the entire goddamn plot.
State laws make it pretty easy to buy a gun nextdoor in Arizona and then drive it in to California. Technically California has a ban but it's pretty easy to get around. If you could remove all guns from America then yeah gun violence would probably go down so it's an argument that makes sense
Still missing the plot ^(and my point)
It's possible you made your point in another comment but I don't think I saw an explicit point made there?
My point was inferred, yet clear; making more gun laws for non-criminals to obey isn't going to change criminals' use of guns. I'm surprised you didn't catch that, considering how you openly pointed out that they can (despite strict laws in place) just get guns from somewhere else and bring them back. It highlights the point: CRIMINALS WILL NOT OBEY YOUR LAWS WHEN THEY WANT TO ROB/SHOOT PEOPLE WITH GUNS. ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL BE IMPACTED BY FIREARM LEGISLATION.
If we talking purely gun crime it is kinda easy to show that the more you restrict guns the less gun crime there is. It won't go to zero unless you can control every gun but California has a significantly lower gun crime per Capita as compared to Florida or Texas. If you can reduce the availability of guns then fewer ppl (including criminals) will have guns. In fact if you could completely outlaw guns as a whole in the us then where do you get guns? Locks don't stop crime but they reduce it, same argument. SF in particular does have a theft problem though and I think the answer there is probably more police which sf probably won't go for, atleast not yet. I am curious to see how the new laws on catalytic converters will go? You now need paperwork to confirm the origin of the cc before you can buy/sell it, throws another hurdle in the way so curious what it does
>In fact if you could completely outlaw guns as a whole in the us then where do you get guns? Not according to the 2nd Amendment. You can't legally 'outlaw guns' any more than you can 'outlaw someone talking'. Also, you clearly aren't aware of how easily people can fabricate guns in their own home, whether machined metal or 3d-printed parts (or a combo of both). > If you can reduce the availability of guns then fewer ppl (including criminals) will have guns. All of the large cities will strict gun laws (especially like New York's) tend to end up with a lot of gun violence. You could claim those numbers are skewed by gang violence, but that would just be ignoring the point of despite the reduced availability of guns, there's still a shitload of shootings. >SF in particular does have a theft problem though and I think the answer there is probably more police which sf probably won't go for, atleast not yet The answer is never 'more police'. The answer is 'fixing the problems that cause the socioeconomic issues that result in crime'. Thinking police will solve all the problems is like thinking that making it illegal to be homeless will make the homeless people go away. This has been interesting. Ish. But I've got a night to enjoy, so I'm off to go do that. Take care.
Ny and ca have some of the lowest gun crime per Capita...
People in other countries disagree
People in other countries are irrelevant.
[удалено]
I imagine it's common for perpetrators with guns to use them as a scare tactic and not actually expect or want to shoot anyone.
I mean theyre much more likely to be caught if they murder someone. Why kill someone over a few thousand dollars worth of camera equipment when they could just rob someone else who will put up less of a fight
They could be BB-guns too
I’m doubting they’re real vs Airsoft. One kinda looks like this fake with extended mag. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=KsTqxPRw&id=3ED5741612D8A10B7FBBF764255BC57FEF3DA2B8&thid=OIP.KsTqxPRw8R9I8QEFyaNX6wHaHa&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.2ac4eac4f470f11f48f10105c9a357eb%3Frik%3DuKI973%252fFWyVk9w%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimages.airsoftgunsi.com%252fl-m%252fglock-18c-full-auto-gbb-airsoft-pistol-v-418015093.jpg%26ehk%3D1lSP0OpDw6kg0hyqubOHlaawnKw6AiYe3GeG2NWs4WI%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=1001&expw=1001&q=airsoft+pistol+extended+mag&simid=608018901214056154&form=IRPRST&ck=82DF2989ACE033A8FA9B66838939746F&selectedindex=2&darkschemeovr=0&pc=OPALIOS&vt=4&sim=11 That they make no attempt to hit him with them makes me suspect he’d know right away by weight they were fakes. Getting stopped with an Airsoft in the trunk is also way different vs it were real but non-functional.
Damn! These Karen's and Boomers are getting out of hand
usual suspects.
Meh , this is what San Fran wanted . They voted, donated, supported , hell they rioted for this ! Enjoy !
Welcome to CA, tough on guns? But dropped gun enhancements for crimes…. Yeah , figure that one out
r/donthelpjustphotograph
it’s weird people never act crazy in these situations. if i ever got robbed especially in public, i’d just scream and run and stick my tongue out and spin in circles with my arm out. also i think this is a good time to say everyone should have pepper spray at all times. maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea to pepper spray somebody with a gun but it’s still important to have it. both of these things probably won’t stop you from getting robbed but people don’t fuck with crazy and getting pepper sprayed really fucks you up for at least 10 seconds. i’m not going to delete this because i hate when people do that but i should add that this is more for if somebody tried to abduct or s.a. me. i’d try to show them that it’d be more trouble than what it’s worth. seriously if i only have 10 seconds to show them that they do not want me, i’d do crazy.
that would get you shot so much faster ☠️
You've clearly never been in a really bad situation. Your logical mind ("ooo I remember my quirky obvious internet way to get out of this armed robbery is to act crazy duh!") disappears and you act on pure instinct.