Robber used Fuel Additive As a Weapon Robbing Convenience Store

Police have been searching for a man who robbed an Ambridge convenience store by taking some flammable liquid off a shelf and threatening to light it on fire.

Ambridge police say the robbery happened about 1:15 a.m. Wednesday at the A-Plus Mini Mart.

Police say the suspect took a metal bottle of a fuel additive that can be used to boost a car's engine performance and asked the store clerk for a cigarette lighter. When she gave it to him, the robber opened the bottle and held the lighter near its mouth, threatening to cause a fire or explosion if she didn't give him money.

Ambridge police Officer Brian Jameson says he's "never seen anything like it."

Nobody has been charged in the robbery.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10035/1033470-100.stm#ixzz0eaVjWho3

What do we ban the fuel additive or the lighter?

Where are the so-called "civil libertarians" on that issue?

Nice try though. I find it interesting that you quote George Orwell in your signature. He was very pro-gun to say the least:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

And another one who doesn't read sig lines to the end. :P

It's not like it's worked, either; the primary effect it's had is to shift meth production to Mexico, whence it's smuggled into the U.S. in sufficient quantities to meet demand. That said, this is the guns forum, and thus not the place to discuss misguided drugs policy except insofar as it relates to violent crime.

I'll add that I do consider meth production to be a genuine safety concern, given that the process produces six measures of poisonous chemical waste for every measure of meth produced, not to mention the risk of release of noxious fumes, fire/explosion hazard, what have you.

How quickly do you think it would be banned? (Again, not advocating a gun ban, just drawing a parallel)

than guns do


(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

First off, comparing raw numbers is ridiculous, given the prevalence and need for doctors and cars. Better to compare incidence of death/injury per use.

Second, we DO restrict certain methods of using our cars when they've been shown to have a high incidence of death or injury. Your freedom to drive whatever speed you want is curtailed. Your freedom to drive yourself home from a bar is restricted. You're even restricted on the type of automobile you can drive and on your personal, private behavior while behind the wheel (e.g. seatbelts, open container laws).

Propose similar types of restrictions for firearms, and you're immediately called a "grabber".

Are you seriously trying to compare "gun legislation" to "automobile legislation"?!? LOL
I would bet that gun legislation makes car legislation look like a pimple on Rush Limbaugh's ass.
Literally, there are tens of thousands of laws restricting the use, possession, and transfer of firearms.

There ARE laws on what KIND of guns you can have; what KIND of ammo you can have; WHERE you can use them; HOW you can use them; what MODIFICATIONS that can be done to them; how BIG they can be; how LITTLE they can be... the list goes on forever.

:shrug:

Just wondering...

In point of fact, the Constitution grants many rights that are not specifically delineated. This is Civics 101.

There are many things people do that have yet to be addressed in the court of law as a constitutional right.

Or are you saying that the fact that the RKBA could be argued in the courts makes it somehow less Constitutionally protected? That's an interesting perspective.

This is why Hamilton opposed having a Bill of Rights, arguing that if you explicitly list certain rights and freedoms, there's always going to be somebody who will argue that anything not explicitly listed isn't a right. The inclusion of the Ninth Amendment was supposed to address that concern.

Are you saying the government can outlaw telephones?

The Constitution recognizes certain rights, among them is the right to keep and bear arms. It is subject, in principle, to no more or less restriction than any of the other rights. The freedom of "press" is generally agreed to include T.V., radio, the internet and telephones (which enjoy the implied right of privacy in the 9th, and more explicit protections in the 4th), and other forms of expression.

There is no similarly over-arching provision in the Constitution by which a presumption of protection could be argued for lighter fluid. Or cars. Or boats. Or shoes, soap, toilet paper, or your dog's fleas. These may be regulated to a much greater degree, as long as such regulation does not run up against applicable parts of the Constitution: you can deny someone a driver's license, as long as the reason given does not run afoul of due process and equal protection clauses.

So, no, the government cannot outlaw telephones.

And, as you know, any time something happens, that proves that we need more guns.

Sorry, this works both ways in the gungeon. Frankly, I get sick of both sides posting individual incidents and acting as if it proves anything. I come into the threads for the conversations that come up later.....

I'd love it if this forum got back to discussing issues, rather than these ridiculous "grandma shoots trespasser"/"little Jimmy shoots his sister" posts.

the charge should be ARMED robbery.

I nearly ended up on the jury of a trial where the charges were robbery, illegal possesion of a weapon, and resisiting arrest. As a veteran of four unsolved burglaries, I easily got myself excused. But I had another problem: The weapon in question was not a gun, but a rock. If the rock was used in the robbery, the charge should have been ARMED robbery. And if the rock was used in the resisting arrest, the additional charges should have been threatening or assaulting a police officer (if they'd let the defendant live).

:crazy:
rocktivity

in an attack on a Winn-Dixie grocery store.

It is simply too much of a temptation to justify having it be available.

And it's ancillary, plain old heat?

I think we should outlaw any temperature above 98.6 degrees.....

:hide: