Teen Tries To Rob Cafe With a Banana 26
niktemadur writes "In an uncanny case of life-imitates-Monty-Python, the BBC reports of a North Carolina teenager who entered an internet cafe with a banana concealed under his T-shirt, said it was a gun and demanded money. The owner of the shop and its customers overcame the hapless thief and called for help. When the police arrived, witnesses reported that the teenager had eaten the banana in the interim. In addition to attempted armed robbery, officers joked they may also charge the 17-year-old with destroying evidence and took pictures of the banana peel instead.
No mention in the article, however, on how patrons might have defended themselves against a pointed stick."
Bad choices (Score:2)
First Guns, Then Knives (Score:2)
Not many people outside of the UK have noticed, but recently there has been a huge hullabaloo over there about "knife crime" - to the point of were they are seriously considering banning (if they haven't already done so) anything much more dangerous than a butterknife.
I think we should we can count on them taking this BBC report to heart and once the dangers of knife-crime have been eliminated, they will move on to ban bananas so that people can be spared the terror and suffering of banana-crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
Somewhere on the net recently, I saw this retarded chef's knife some entrepreneur in London was trying to have instituted as the only legal, large knife you could buy in the city. Instead of having a regular sharp point, it had a much smaller point along the regular cutting edge, but instead had a flat segment which would apparently make stabbing someone to death more difficult.
Of course, everyone ignores that a slash attack with a sharp knife can pretty easily make wounds resembling those made on seals by
Re: (Score:2)
We know the inanimate objects aren't the source of the problem, but we do know that they make a lot of problems much much worse.
Re: (Score:1)
They will only get my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are probably already regulations about Windows above a few stories that insist they are toughened glass etc...
Re: (Score:1)
They only make things worse if criminals never need to fear retaliation whilst they freely use them. Of course they don't--and why should they? Even the bulk of law enforcement officers in the UK don't/can't carry firearms. They have to wait for special response, Authorized Firearms Officers, or fight 'em off with their truncheon or tazer. Maybe that will change, after a few cops get mobbed and killed.
The subjects are even worse off. Your government has no respect for an individual's right to protect himsel
Re: (Score:2)
Sprays and so on are legal as far as I know, but I don't know anyone with one.
Some breeds of dogs are actually banned, due to too many "baby mauling" incidents. Mastiffs are allowed, the main one which isn't is the "pit bull terrier".
I've NEVER seen a violent crime. Those "weapon wielding crazies" you mention are really a U.S. thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, on the whole, they're (violent crime) pretty rare here as well. And, in some people's minds, I'm quite sure that description (weapon wielding crazy) applies to me, due to certain *ahem* lifestyle choices. The difference is, of course, I'm not out to cause anyone harm, may be able to save someone else from harm when the time comes.
If you get out enough, chances are you'll see a violent crime in your lifetime. You'd be amazed at the number of guns and concealed carry licenses a string of rapes around a co
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they don't write "I intend to kill that rapist motherfucker" on their gun or carry licence application, though that is probably what most of them are thinking.
A gun is self defence only in the sense that it kills the other person, which stops them e.g. robbing/mugging or raping you. Personally, I don't consider that acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay. I do, though, so I don't see how it becomes your business whether _I_ carry a gun. Since you, hopefully, are not planning to be a robber/mugger, you don't have anything to fear. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
You're ok with killing someone to stop them doing something which is significantly less than killing someone themself?
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life.
Re: (Score:1)
On the topic of rape: would you have the opportunity to ask your attacker whether or not he has blood-borne or sexually transmitted pathogens? There is a reasonable fear of death of life altering infection by AIDS, Hepatitis, etc. should a rape attempt be successful.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, nobody is thinking that...Unless they've been previously raped--in which case, I think that's a completely justified response against future attacks, or they're a vigilante (relatively few enough of those to ignore them for the sake of this conversation, however).
They're thinking, "I hope to God this tool will help protect me from that serial rapist/killer." I know, because I'm a certified instructor of the mandatory safety class in my state--an individual wishing to carry a concealed weapon m
Re: (Score:2)
I am insulted by the way you quote "only raping you" as if I said that. I would never belittle the people who have suffered rape by claiming it was "only".
What I was saying is that if stopping someone without killing them is possible, that is what should be done. Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable. With the adrenaline rush you'd get when you're actually in that situation, you're unlikely to be able to think and aim well enough to "just" disable someone.
With the sheer number of Christians i
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's not you, but some people, including some Christians, do think that it's not appropriate to kill someone attempting rape. It's a crime, that's "significantly less than killing someone" (as you say) in the eyes of the court. Obviously, I feel that's quite ridiculous, and I feel that the victim should ideally be be the judge, jury and executioner, just before she becomes a real victim. It just saves everyone a lot of trouble, and counseling a rape victim is harder than someone traumatized because th
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?
Your definition of "deserves" may be "intends harm", but you aren't the one holding the gun in every crime in the US. The stupid masses will be.
Re: (Score:1)
So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?
Holy shit, you're thick. I'm in favor of people defending themselves when there's an active threat. I don't care if they use knives, swords, clubs, rifles, pistols, phasers, ion cannons, or orbital bombardment, as long as it's used appropriately and responsibly.
That said, people make mistakes. That's a given. The margin for making a mistake when you're using a gun is a lot thinner than for other things, a
Re: (Score:2)
It's a thin line, and one I don't think the masses can walk, especially with the adrenaline of a real life-threatening situation.
You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit. Thankfully people tend to run away from trouble, otherwise they might be more likely to hit bystanders than the person they're aiming for.
Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals? If you trust everyone to use their guns for good, your trust is very misplaced.
Re: (Score:1)
You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit.
The only verifiable metric available for this statistic is found in shootings where police are involved (that said, affirmative action hirelings are rarely known to achieve the acme of shooting proficiency), and yeah... They tend to spray bullets frantically all over the place. Heck, there's been a number of cops which have emptied their magazines before they even got on target (as they were drawing the gun, seriously.) It's said that most shooting
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that US cities "historically" against guns are the more crime ridden, but UK cities have dramatically lower crime levels all round.
You say that guns are most dangerous when the criminals have them, so you need them too. I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale, nearly all criminals would be gun free. In the UK, guns are extremely rare among criminals, hence the windbag politicians going after knives. Unfortunatel
Re: (Score:1)
I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale
Actually, much like drug dealers, there's the street dealers, who act as a sort of clearing house for all types of illegally obtained guns. Those may come from so-called straw purchases (one person buys for another who is not qualified), guns obtained from thefts, and lastly, illegal transactions with licensed dealers. People are sometimes paid a fair sum to go out and buy guns to turn t
Re: (Score:2)
'Disarmed' implies that at some point in the past you were armed. This is not the case; I don't think there's ever been a time when ownership of firearms was commonplace. Shotguns and such things, yes, in agricultural areas, but pistols and the like? All but unknown even before they were banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Switzerland probably has full automatic rifles in more than 50% of all households. Of course politians don't like that fact very much and are working hard towards changing this.
Hmmm (Score:1)