Pharmacist "defending his employees and customers" will not be charged after shooting robber

[virginia mountainman]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Attempted_pharmacy_robbery_turns_deadly.html

See owning a gun to defend yourself is a good idea. You'll protect your, your customers, and your employees from harm.

[TheWraith]

1. Seeking Oxycontin, says "Let's get it on" to revolver wielding clerk...

Somehow I'm guessing that the robber was a Republican.

[rwheeler31]

2. So when we go to get a RX we will be shot?

[virginia mountainman]

3. If you do it with a gun, instead of a Rx, you run that risk..NT

[katandmoon]

4. Welcome to Gun Worshipper FantasyLand!

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. Thanks for driving by. Be sure and stop by again soon!

Cheers!

[jgraz]

5. Wow, that totally makes up for the toddler who shot her brother to death

Good thing they killed that robber. It's not like they could just order more pills or anything.


Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8071512.stm

I wonder if the three year old "feared for her life".

[madmom]

7. "It's not like they could just order more pills or anything." I think it

was a little more than the pills the owner was worried about.


"Police arrived to find the gunman, whose identity wasn't released Wednesday, lying on his back in a pool of blood. In his right hand was a cocked revolver.'

[IDFbunny]

8. So just alway give in to robbers?

It's no biggy if they threaten life? Just assume he will just go away? Bullshit.

[jgraz]

10. It's a lot harder for criminals to threaten your life if they can't get their hands on a gun

Why is it that stories like this are always used to advocate for MORE gun violence? Without this country's insanely easy access to handguns, it's likely this crime never would have taken place.

I know, not the Die Hard ending you'd hoped for. Sorry.

[virginia mountainman]

13. Easy Access??

20,000 laws say it is not that easy.....

Problem is, Criminals, by definition, ignore laws....

[jgraz]

15. 30,000 gun deaths say it is.

[imdjh]

18. You know what the law abiding citizen should have done if the robber had a knife instead of a gun?

Shot him. Dead.

[jgraz]

20. Yeah, just like in the movies

Wow, I'm getting a stiffie just thinking about it.

:eyes:

[imdjh]

21. You too? nt

[virginia mountainman]

19. I am sorry, your numbers are deeply flawed...

Or, your trying to lie...



Stay away from Sara Brady, and the VPC's website, they are full of crap

[jgraz]

23. Your screenshot is meaningless. The CDC lists 30,694 firearm deaths in 2005

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm

In 2005, poisoning continued to be the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, having surpassed firearms for the first time in 2004. In 2004, poisoning deaths exceeded those related to firearms by 2%; however, the difference increased to 7% in 2005, with 32,691 poisoning deaths compared with 30,694 firearm deaths. Motor vehicle traffic (MVT) deaths were the leading cause of injury death from 1999-2005, accounting for 43,667 deaths in 2005. From 2004 to 2005, MVT deaths increased 1%, firearm deaths, 4% and poisoning deaths, 8%.

Nice to see the numbers confirmed by a site that already gets your stamp of approval. Thanks for the link.

[virginia mountainman]

26. LOL that counts even POLICE shootings and Suicides, among others...

NOW NOW, you would not be "padding the numbers" now would you??

[jgraz]

27. Those are the numbers from your site. Sorry you don't like them, now that they prove you wrong.

Reality is a bitch sometimes, ain't it?

Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, try not starting every post with "LOL". This ain't 4chan.

[virginia mountainman]

29. As I said, your counting EVERY THING...

Even Justifiable Police shootings, accidents, murders, and justifiable homicide.

Dig a little deeper you will find that the actual criminal use, is much less.

And besides, what is the finial result of what your arguing about, IE what do you want to do about it?

[jgraz]

31. How are those not "gun deaths"?

I listed 30,000 *gun deaths*. You accused me of lying. How was I wrong?

Do those killed by police resurrect after 3 days? Do accidental shootings somehow zombify and go looking for brains to eat?

OF COURSE I'm counting everything. Why in great galloping fuck shouldn't I?


I'll tell you what I'd like to do about it as soon as you acknowledge that my numbers are valid. If you can't do that, we can't really have a good-faith debate, can we?

[virginia mountainman]

32. Ok, how do you propose to disarm the Police??

[jgraz]

34. Irrelevant to the current discussion. Are there 30,000 gun deaths/year or not?

A simple YES will suffice.

[krispos42]

73. Yes there are.

Now...


18,000 of them were suicides. If a gun was not available, how many or what percentage of them would still have killed themselves?

12,000 of them were murder victims. If a gun was not available, how many or what percentage of them would still have been murdered?

Guns are used defensively about a million times a year. By not having these guns available, how would that have affected the outcomes of those foiled crimes?

[Shagbark Hickory]

91. The same way you make them take down their red light cameras

You stop giving them a reason to use them.

And yes our county literally took down the red light cameras and stopped using them because it was more expensive to operate than it was bringing in.

[TheWraith]

63. You've read FAR too many alarmist news stories.

The fact is that getting a gun LEGALLY is FAR from "easy access." Plus, the vast vast majority of all crimes are committed using illegal guns, by people who are not legally permitted to even TOUCH a firearm ever again.

And nobody is advocating for "more gun violence." But some people recognize that the trade in illegal guns is not going away if we disarm legal owners.

[krispos42]

70. No, not really

In 1989, in response to a mass shooting, the UK Parliment banned and confiscated what we would call "assault weapons". They refused to renew the existing owership permits or issue new ones.


In 1998, in response to another mass shooting, the UK Parliment did the same thing for handgun permits.


In that time, the UK's homicide rate has just about doubled. However, their GUN homicide rate is at historic lows.

[patriotvoice]

82. Describe a plan that makes it hard for a criminal to obtain and carry a gun concealed while making

the same no more difficult than now for law-abiding citizens. Until then, your responses that leverage the emotional aspect fall on deaf ears.

[imdjh]

17. bronx cheer - can't find the emoticon, well, not going to look for it. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Snaps to you, you were right here to Lovejoy the thread! n/t

[rwheeler31]

6. Pharma wants money, gun dealers want money,

let them fight it out.

[Tim01]

9. I have a surveilance video of a robber murdering a compliant clerk.

I guess that robber was at a different place than this pharmacy.

I wonder if the clerk actually saved the lives of some future victims of the robber? Probably.

[jgraz]

11. And how many lives would have been saved if that criminal couldn't get a handgun?

Since we're talking hypotheticals and all...

[virginia mountainman]

12. LOL, how do you plan on taking away the guns from Criminals???

LOL!!!

[jgraz]

14. We can start with a sane debate on gun policy

Something that's impossible with both parties tongue-kissing the gun industry.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Sane Debate??

I am willing to debate...

What are you, gun control advocate, what do YOU want, and what are you willing to compromise on??

[jgraz]

25. I'm not a gun control advocate. At least not in the way that you think.

I'm mostly against the bullshit lies spread by the gun corporations and their lobbyists. The first thing I want is a Congress that isn't bought and paid for by the gun industry, and Democratic leaders who don't piss themselves at the thought of taking on the NRA.

We can start by restoring citizens' rights to sue gun makers for negligence -- something any real civil rights advocate should be in favor of.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Can we sue GM for Drunk Drivers too??

I am a real civil rights advocate, but I can sense bullshit lawsuits a mile away

BTW, if a gun maker makes a faulty product, they CAN be sued, but they cannot be sued for what OTHER people does with their product.

Where are these "Gun lobbyists" What Lies??

[jgraz]

33. You can try. How far do you think you'd get with such a lawsuit?

Oh, and stop accusing me of lying. It's against DU rules and it makes you look like an ass. Especially when I turn out to be right.

[virginia mountainman]

35. I asked you a question, what bullshit lies??

What "Gun Lobby"?? THe NRA, cannot vote, so certainly you cannot be talking about them?

So, you are in support, of using frivolous lawsuits to drive a lawful company out of business??

[jgraz]

36. Until you start following DU rules, we're done talking.

[virginia mountainman]

38. You said in post. 25

I'm mostly against the bullshit lies spread by the gun corporations and their lobbyists. The first thing I want is a Congress that isn't bought and paid for by the gun industry, and Democratic leaders who don't piss themselves at the thought of taking on the NRA.

We can start by restoring citizens' rights to sue gun makers for negligence -- something any real civil rights advocate should be in favor of.

I asked WHAT lies.... and you flipped out...

O well, it is bed time anyway..

EDIT, until the ACLU stands up for the WHOLE Bill of Rights, the NRA will need to pick up the slack....

[jgraz]

39. OK, I get it. Honestly, your writing is a bit hard to parse.

But, I take my lumps for misreading it. My apologies.

For Bullshit lies, you can start with the 2005 law that eliminated our right to sue gun makers. That was written directly by the gun industry and it contains nothing but lies and Republican propaganda.

[spin]

84. If a gun manufacturer makes an unsafe product...

he deserves to be sued.

If however, he makes a product that is misused by a criminal what sense does a lawsuit make?

If some idiot took a chainsaw and killed people, would it be right to sue the chainsaw manufacturer?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. If he's breaking the rules alert on the post and it will be deleted.

[NewMoonTherian]

67. What negligence...

was committed by the makers of guns used in crimes? I disagree with most gun control, both what is proposed and what we already have in place, but I can see the rationale behind most anti-gun arguments. Suing manufacturers for producing guns that function as designed, though, is something I cannot wrap my mind around, and I really want to. It just appears to me that those lawsuits are an attempt to harrass an industry in order to restrict gun ownership without having to fight the hard fight in Congress.

[jgraz]

71. Please read the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution

You may be surprised to know this, but the Bill of Rights has a whole bunch more stuff in it besides the second half of the Second Amendment.

[NewMoonTherian]

81. Clearly.

But if, as anti-gun activists often point out, rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions, and further, if a certain group of private entities is continually brought to court without cause for the sole purpose of running up their legal defense costs, then certain protections need to be put in place.

That said, this is a potential area for compromise, where both sides might walk away with a win.

Suppose that restrictions on gun manufacturer lawsuits were lifted, but if the defendant wins the case, the plaintiff is held responsible for all the court costs and legal defense costs incurred by the defendant in fighting the case. If the defendant loses, however, the defendant is responsible for the expenses of the plaintiff, in addition to the damages awarded.

*edit, typo

[Euromutt]

96. Hang on, there's no "loser pays" rule here?

Sorry, I'm originally from the Netherlands, and they do things a little differently there. Do I understand correctly that it's not part of civil procedure in the US that the loser pays the winner's incurred expenses? Damn, that explains a lot! It certainly explains why the US such an extraordinarily litigious society.

[ManiacJoe]

100. Correct, there is no "loser pays" rule.

However, it is often an immediate counter suit.

[NewMoonTherian]

101. You're telling me.

It's a nightmare, and not just for gun manufacturers. If we did have "loser pays" there would never have been a controversy over gun maker lawsuits in the first place. Activists were filing suit, knowing it was almost impossible to win, in order to intimidate, defame and rob manufacturers.

[imdjh]

22. You want to debate a civil right? Are you in California? Let's vote on it! nt

[Tim01]

24. Bus driver stabbed to death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xngKw2C0KsY

Guns are good at killing, that is true. But really where they shine is protecting a potential victim from a safe distance. The fact is that bad guys don't like to to try to get close to a person pointing a gun at them. And if they do try to close the distance the victim can stop them.
A good guy with a gun causes a bad guy lots of problems the bad guy does not want.
I personally know of 4 times when a gun was pulled in self defense and it ended the threat.2 had to do with druggies,1 with rednecks, and 1 was 4 guys were trying to get a hold of a girl in a parking lot. None of the good guys reported it to the police for fear of getting in trouble.

[jgraz]

28. And your solution is more weaponry?

How about addressing the causes of crime? Crime goes down when there is less poverty, when societies are more egalitarian. More gun violence ain't gonna do shit to reduce these situations.

[Tim01]

37. You are absolutly correct.

The crime rates and violence rates are not affected by the presence or lack of guns hardly at all. I've looked at the numbers. In the big picture, guns just don't matter. They don't get that many more people killed, or that many more people saved. Where they make a difference is to the INDIVIDUAL who chooses to carry a gun for self defense. That person has a much much better chance of surviving a violent encounter. The shop owner that has a gun kills the criminal instead of him getting killed himself. The girl in the parking is one of the FEW who prevails against 4 guys.

Guns don't do shit for crime compared to the economy and poverty.

So why do you want to start a crusade against guns? Or do you just have a personal hatred of them?

Rail against something that matters.

Guns don't do shit for crime rates compared to the economy and poverty.

[jgraz]

41. I'm not on a crusade against guns. If anything, I'm on a crusade against idiocy

...especially the idiocy masquerading as our "national debate" on gun policy.

For example, you say that guns don't do shit for crime rates. That may be supportable by statistics, but that's not the point. Guns DO affect the rate of death by firearms in this country. We know that more gun ownership means more suicides, more domestic shootings, more accidental deaths and more gun homicides. If we want to have an honest debate on the policy, we can start by acknowledging that simple fact.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. You are incorrect. There has yet to be a study that concludes the presence guns CAUSE deaths.

If you can cite such a study please do so.

[jgraz]

47. No seriously. We have to maintain some tenuous grasp on reality here.

Let's just start with suicides, since that's the least contentious:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/hsop-gih040607.php
Boston, MA -- In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2007 issue of The Journal of Trauma.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1756560
Across the nine regions for the early 1990s (n = 9), household handgun ownership rates are positively correlated with the suicide rate (r = 0.59) and are not correlated with either the lifetime prevalence of major depression or suicidal thoughts. After controlling for major depression and suicidal thoughts (and any of the four additional control variables), handgun ownership rates remain significantly associated with the overall suicide rate.

Please, feel free to prove any of these studies wrong.

[Hoopla Phil]

80. Reality check.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles.php?artID=080713_guns_do_not_cause_suicide

http://www.klis.com/chandler/pamphlet/dep/Suicide.htm

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suicide.html

[Euromutt]

89. Yes, a dose of reality is called for

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

I doubt whether that's true. In Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (1997), Gary Kleck wrote:

The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.

Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association between gun levels and rates of total suicides.

Now, there are two things that need to be acknowledged:
First, I don't know how many of these studies were conducted within the US; the studies I can cite that found no association did not study the United States, or did not study the United States exclusively. So statement quoted above may, strictly speaking, be true.

However (and that's the second point), even if it's strictly speaking true, that does mean that conclusion is based on biased selection of data. It is very simply not kosher to ignore data that doesn't support--or contradicts outright--your hypothesis.

From WHO data (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf), we can see that the US suicide rate has showed a slight but consistent decrease since 1975, even as the number of guns in private hands has soared. Germany (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/germ.pdf), despite having significantly tighter gun laws than the US, has had a slightly higher suicide rate than the US since 1990 (whereas the Netherlands, with comparable gun laws to Germany's, has a somewhat lower suicide rate http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/neth.pdf than the US's). Poland also has pretty tight gun laws, and the suicide rate is around 150% of the US's (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/pola.pdf); the same applies to France (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/fran.pdf). The Japanese suicide rate, at most recent count, was twice (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/japa.pdf) the US's, despite guns being exceedingly rare in Japan. Russia, where handguns are illegal for private citizens, and both hunting weapons and the permit required to own them are too expensive for the average citizen, has a suicide rate triple that of the US (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/russ.pdf) (the homicide rate is also worse).

Actually, there's some interesting trends to be seen; suicide rates in western Europe and North America all spiked around the mid-1980s, whereas in Russia, suicide soared (even by Russian standards) during the mid- to late 1990s (the Yeltsin years). The Japanese suicide rate also rose sharply during the mid- to late 1990s to the highest levels since the second world war, and they remain that high. What these elevated rates all have in common is that they occurred during periods of economic malaise, and at first glance, this seems a more credible cause of suicides than availability of firearms to private citizens.

As an aside, one should exercise caution when any statistics-based study claims to find that one thing "is associated with" or "linked to" another. More often than not, it's code for "we've found a correlation that's way too tenuous for us to credibly claim a causal relationship, but we want you to think there is anyway." This is partly an effect of "publication bias," the tendency of journals to print studies that reject the null hypothesis (i.e. find something new to report) rather than studies that find nothing new.

Now, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the three studies presented by jgraz are, in fact, only two studies; two of his references cite the same study:
Miller M, Lippmann SJ, Azrael D, Hemenway D. "Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States." Journal of Trauma 2007 Apr;62(4):1029-34.
The other study is:
Hemenway D, Miller M. "Association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression, and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions." Injury Prevention 2002 December; 8(4): 313–316.

Sharp-eyed readers will notice that two of the authors wrote both studies. Gosh, the same researchers study the same topic and confirm their own findings. What are the chances? Seriously, one reason to be skeptical of the findings of studies on gun violence in the public health literature (the NEJM, JAMA, Pediatrics, BMJ, The Lancet and their various daughter publications) is because such studies tend to be written by the same, comparatively small group of researchers, who keep cranking out studies that all arrive at similar conclusions (to wit "guns are bad"). I'm not kidding: see how often the names of Miller, Hemenway, Azrael, Lippman, Kellerman and Wintemute crop up in these studies; it's as if it's all they do. And while that fact alone does not discredit the two studies in question, it should cause us to approach them with some caution.

It is at this point that I will cite an article by Ted Goertzel (of Rutgers University), published in the Skeptical Inquirer in 2002 (http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm):

When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.

Interestingly, the example to which Goertzel devotes most space is John Lott's work that resulted in the book More Guns, Less Crime. But Goertzel's argument applies equally to Miller and Hemenway's studies: the model they used to conduct their studies makes predictions that are clearly falsified when applied to international comparisons of gun prevalence and suicide rates, and can therefore be dismissed as junk science.

[Hoopla Phil]

93. WOW, very good information there. Thank you.

[Tim01]

52. The numbers are small enough as to be irrelevent.

Sure the existence of guns causes more gun deaths. People who drive red cars die more often in red cars. And people who own more chainsaws or more often the victim of a chainsaw accident.
It makes suicides more successful and all the rest. And the numbers are small enough to be not worth bothering with. Alcohol kills between 2 and 10 times as many people as guns do, and alcohol isn't really good for much of anything at all. The number of kids killed by accident with a gun is less than the number of parents driving over their own kids and killing them with their own car.

And in spite of the ridiculous number of people who shoot guns around me on a regular basis I have never seen a person shot,(thank god). I have seen somebody die due to alcohol.

But nobody is suggesting a ban on strong liquor. OR preventing mentally ill people from buying alcohol. OR safes in the house for the alcohol. OR locks on the bottles of alcohol. OR suing alcohol manufacturers when someone dies because of alcohol. OR limiting the amount of alcohol you can buy.
It is an huge double standard pushed by people who are ignorant about guns. They just "feel" guns are scary and bad. Nobody is going to try that hard to keep a drunk from killing some kid. But they are willing to put 100 times as much time and money to save 1/5 as many people from guns. And claim the moral high road. Because it "feels" right.

[jgraz]

56. The alcohol canard is really weak sauce

First, cite your stats that alcohol kills up to 10 times more people than guns. That's 300,000 deaths from alcohol per year. The CDC cites around 76,000 AAD (alcohol attributable deaths) in 2001. Did we have a sudden spike? I mean, I can understand more people drinking themselves to death during the Bush years, but 300,000?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

And again, it's apples to oranges. Alcohol-related deaths are just that: alcohol-related. Very few people die from alcohol alone (around 1400/year). AADs usually involve alcohol plus some expressly illegal behavior (e.g. driving while drunk). They also include a good many gun deaths, both homicides and suicides.

Unlike alcohol, many people die from firearms alone. You don't need to be in a car or be skinny-dipping or be smoking in bed. You just need a gun. Can you imagine what would happen if 30,000 people / year were dying from drinking alone? If 12,000 people a year committed suicide by drinking? Look what happened to our right to buy decongestants after the only about 500 people / year died from meth addiction.


Oh and this:
Nobody is going to try that hard to keep a drunk from killing some kid.

Really? Have you heard of MADD? The difference here is we actually have politicians willing to pass laws against drunk driving. How many of them would pass higher penalties for misuse of firearms? Can you imagine the outcry if a police roadblock was set up to check people for illegal possession of firearms? Yet they do that for drunk driving all the time.


And one more thing: if you think alcohol "isn't really good for much of anything at all", you're doing it wrong. ;)

[WWFZD]

58. The claim was

"Alcohol kills between 2 and 10 times as many people as guns do..."

"First, cite your stats that alcohol kills up to 10 times more people than guns. That's 300,000 deaths from alcohol per year. The CDC cites around 76,000 AAD (alcohol attributable deaths) in 2001. Did we have a sudden spike? I mean, I can understand more people drinking themselves to death during the Bush years, but 300,000?"

2*30,000 < 76,000 < 10*30,000

[jgraz]

59. Yes, it's literally correct but deceptively presented.

2x is lot less that 10x. The actual value is barely over 2x. So the 10x is total bullocks.

It's like if I said that there were between 30,000 and 150,000 gun deaths last year. I'd be literally correct, but I'd also be deliberately dishonest.

[Tim01]

61. For the last time. I'm not doing this again.

MADD HUH?
Nobody is going to pass a law to require liquor is kept in a safe. OR that liquor bottles are manufactured with safeties. OR that mentally ill people can't buy liquor, OR that you have to have training to purchase liquor.
Roadblocks? It is already nothing unusual for police to show up at a private residence in the country if they hear people shooting guns. This would be the same as the police showing up at your house because the neighbors saw that you had alcohol.

29,573 gun deaths in 2001. Less than half as many as alcohol related. Your source says alcohol kills twice as many people as guns. And this year my dad died to "heart failure". 3 months before that his doctor told him his drinking has seriously damaged his heart and he was killing himself. That is another death that wasn't recorded as alcohol related. That is only 1 person I know the inside story on. There are lots and lots more. And even discounting all those, alcohol still kills twice as many people as guns.



Alchohol killed 76,000 people. It is good for getting people drunk. Occasionally there are road blocks to see if you are operating a car while drunk. There are govt. stores that sell it and anybody over 21 can buy it.

Guns killed 29,573. Guns are used to defend lives by the police, military, and civilians. Hunting turkey, ducks, dove,deer, squirrel,coon, bear, elk, moose, hell this is just a really long list. Sports that use guns, IDPA,silhouette rifle pistol big bore and small bore,PPC,1000 yd bench, plate games, cowboy action, I'm not even going to try to list all the gun sports.
There are 20,000 laws on the books about guns. In addition to all the new law they are trying to further restrict guns, ammunition, background checks, types of guns. You almost have to be a lawyer to own a gun.

AND Guns are specifically protected by our constitution.

[jgraz]

64. Check back when 12,000/year people kill themselves by drinking

Or when a mentally-ill college student kills 33 people with a bottle of Old Overholt. Or when a toddler finds mom's stash of JD and uses it to kill her baby brother.

The other difference is that people engaged in dangerous or illegal behavior with alcohol can be often stopped before anyone gets hurt. Tell me, what was the first detectable, illegal act that Seung-Hui Cho performed with his firearms?


Guns are viewed as worse because guns ARE worse. The consequences of misusing a gun around people are always worse than the consequences of misusing alcohol around people. The only way you can pretend otherwise is through ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparisons.

[Tim01]

65. AT LEAST TWICE as many people die from alcohol. Their deaths don't bother you.

Because you like alcohol and you don't like guns.
You should hate alcohol 2 to 10 times as much as you hate guns but that isn't the case.

You are emotional not rational. Noting else.

[jgraz]

68. Actually, between 0.5 and 1,000,000,000 times as many people die from firearms each year

See, I can play that game too.

[Tim01]

66. Just admit you dislike guns and that is reallly all there is to it.

You don't care that much about people being killed by guns.

You're own source the CDC says outright that when gun suicides go down other suicides go up by almost as much. I am not going to bother quoting because it doesn't actually matter to you at all.

Even if all the numbers say your dislike of guns is irrational it will not change your mind about them.

[jgraz]

69. Just admit you like guns and that's all there is to it

Another game. This is fun!

[Tim01]

75. I didn't think you would deny it. Have a good day.

[yay]

107. WOW....... hipocracy at it's finest right here folks.

[WWFZD]

57. Well said Tim01 n/t

[Euromutt]

79. It's hard to know where to start...

Let's try here:

Guns DO affect the rate of death by firearms in this country.

True, but tautological. More guns may result in more deaths by gun, but there's no basis to assume that those deaths would not have occurred absent the firearms used.

One good example is Switzerland. It's a while back now, but it frequently got pointed out that Switzerland, which has comparatively lax gun laws, had the highest "death by gun" rate in western Europe. That is, of violent deaths that occurred, Switzerland had the highest percentage that were committed using a firearm. However, at the same time, Switzerland also had one of the lowest homicide rates in western Europe.

We know that more gun ownership means more suicides, more domestic shootings, more accidental deaths and more gun homicides.

We know nothing of the sort. From the findings of the CDC's Task Force on Community Preventive Services (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm):

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

Emphases mine. And Christ knows it's not because nobody's been looking.

But I'm skeptical you'll be convinced, jgraz. After all, you wrote:

That may be supportable by statistics, but that's not the point.

Sounds like truthiness in action to me: never mind that the evidence contradicts me, I'm right because, dammit, I'm so sincere.

[patriotvoice]

83. So we agree: stop focusing on the tool and start focusing on the root problems.

Which probably include poverty, acculturation, limited access to mental health facilities, and freedom of choice. All this chatter about such and such innocent being killed and such and such criminal being killed is secondary and irrelevant. Their dead. Move on. Address the cause.

On edit:
Clarification of "mental health" issue.

[jgraz]

40. Here's my problem with celebrating incidents like this

It plays right into the hands of the most reactionary, regressive aspects of this society. It celebrates the fact that a citizen felt the need to kill someone in order to feel safe. It subtly (or not-so-subtly) advocates for the position that the real solution to crime is not reducing poverty, it's not increasing access to mental health care, it's not working together to build a more egalitarian, more democratic, more CIVILIZED society. No, it's making sure that every adult is armed to the fucking teeth.

This is the attitude of the Sarah Palin voters, of the teabaggers, of the 20% who still love George W. Bush. It's an attitude that anyone pretending to be a Democrat should have grown beyond.

We can have a debate about gun policy, but can we please stop pretending that incidents like this represent ANYTHING good about the current state of our nation?

[krispos42]

74. It's both, IMO

Crime is both a personal and a societal problem. The rates of crime are heavily influenced by economic, drug, law-enforcement, mental-health, and education policy.

However, whether you are in a high-crime urban area or a low-crime suburb, when the criminal is breaking into your house (for example), use of lethal force to defend yourself and your family is equally acceptable in both locations.



I want a low crime rate. Any sane person does. And I think the best way to get that is not for everybody to pack heat, but by making dramatic changes in economic, drug, law-enforcement, mental-health, and education policy. HOWEVER, I also want the option to have the appropriate hardware in my house or on my person to deal with serious threats. And I want the law to be understanding and non-persecutorial if, god forbid, the worst-case scenario unfolds.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. A strawman, a false dichotomy, and classism in one paragraph!

You, sir, have won (1) Internets:

It plays right into the hands of the most reactionary, regressive aspects of this society. It celebrates the fact that a citizen felt the need to kill someone in order to feel safe.

No, the citizen killed in order to BE safe. Being robbed by someone in possession of a cocked revolver
is a life-threatening situation. Would that the robber didn't die, but the onus is not on the pharmacist,
but himself.

It subtly (or not-so-subtly) advocates for the position that the real solution to crime is not reducing poverty, it's not increasing access to mental health care, it's not working together to build a more egalitarian, more democratic, more CIVILIZED society.

Here's the false dichotomy. We can (and I certainly do) work together to make ours a more egalitarian and just society. In the meantime, we must deal with life as it is, and you will just have to get over the fact that
the pharmacist didn't comport himself in a manner that meets with your approval.

No, it's making sure that every adult is armed to the fucking teeth.

And here's the strawman. No one here advocates this.

This is the attitude of the Sarah Palin voters, of the teabaggers, of the 20% who still love George W. Bush. It's an attitude that anyone pretending to be a Democrat should have grown beyond.

An expansion of the strawman. And who are you to vet who is or isn't a Democrat?
Where I come from the definition of a Democrat is: One who votes Democratic. Period.

What it does not say is: "One who votes Democratic, but owns a gun is only pretending."

Maybe the Joyce Foundation and its allies would have us believe this, but most here at DU Guns forum
don't.

We can have a debate about gun policy, but can we please stop pretending that incidents like this represent ANYTHING good about the current state of our nation?

Who is pretending? On balance, it *is* a good thing that the victim lived and the criminal died.
Sad that the robber chose a life of crime, but he will not victimize anyone else.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. I would add that you are not the first self-appointed zampolit we've seen.

The most recent one was Canadian and couldn't quite wrap her head around the idea that US Democrats
don't march in lockstep to what the most recent party platform decreed.

Also, she was quite vexed that her disapproval of us pro- Second Amendment types didn't seem to carry
as much weight with us as she thought it should.


In other words:

I knew iverglas. And you, sir, are no iverglas.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. Here's my reason for celebrating an Innocent persons right to self defense.

Cause it really puts a burr under the saddle of the antis and disproves their meme that guns do not save lives.

[jgraz]

44. So it's just childish taunting? Nice to know what your motivation is.

Oh, and btw, the dead guy on the floor wants to have a word about your contention that guns save lives.

[Hoopla Phil]

45. They do. The innocent ones. Or would you rather the reverse?

[jgraz]

48. Or how about neither?

Remove the guns from the above situation. How many dead people now?

[Hoopla Phil]

51. Remove the guns you say. And I'm in fantasy land?

Criminals will always get there hands on guns. The strong will prey on the week. If that criminal had come in swing a baseball bat I'd still be happy that the owner was able to defend himself with a firearm. You see, there are many types of deadly weapons out there. The handgun is the most affective means of self defense to date.

[jgraz]

54. Let me get this straight

A criminal (heretofore known as a "human being") reaches such a desperate state that he attacks another human being with a baseball bat. Human being #2 shoots and kills human being #1 and... you're HAPPY about it?

Exactly what part of the above situation makes you happy?

[ManiacJoe]

60. When choosing between two bad options,

"happy" is when the lesser of the bads is selected. If the Bad Guy has decided that one of the two people has to be injured/killed, then much better him than the Good Guy, obviously.

[jgraz]

72. I'd agree, if we only had those two options

But that is a false dichotomy put forward by the right wing in this country. The same people who want you to fear and hate "the terrorists" want you to fear and hate "the criminals".

It's been an effective means of control for almost 40 years. Fortunately, a key part of progressivism is thinking beyond what you've been told by authorities.

[Hoopla Phil]

78. No, that is the reality of it. When a person comes at you to

do you harm, rape you, or take your livelihood you have two options. Roll over and give him everything he asks for and home that this criminal somehow has some honer to not kill you or you can fight back. The handgun is the most affective weapon to use in that fight. You can hope for the honor if you choose, but I will take the second option myself.

[ManiacJoe]

90. Feel free to list the missing options.

If you are going to wrongly claim "false dichotomy", you better at least make a feeble attempt to defend the claim.

[Shagbark Hickory]

92. Everything you just said. Republican fear machine-> oooh scary boogeyman

☺

[Hoopla Phil]

77. That the innocent person was able to successfully defend against

unlawful deadly force. That is a good thing. It's a shame that a bad person did a bad thing but that is an argument for a different thread.

[one-eyed fat man]

94. desperados????

Let's clear up something. Someone walking into a drugstore with a weapon of any kind is there because it is a career choice for him. He is not pinching a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

I don't want to hear how he loved his momma, how he was good person except for that armed robbery habit. Some people play "Grand Theft Auto" as a diversion while others see it as a real life business model.

Poverty may be used to rationalize stealing, but robbery, especially armed robbery is confrontational. Desparation might induce somone who saw you drop your wallet to keep it but that is fundamentally different from someone who chooses to bodyslam a little old lady he outweighs by a hundred pounds to snatch her purse.

That a predatory criminal armed with a deadly weapon he has threatened to use gets killed by someone who refuses to be a victim, it certainly fixes the recidivism problem. That'll be the last parole violation for that thug.

Yeah, that pleases me! A whole lot more than reading about some wino got his head caved in with a ball bat because some thug was after his SS check.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Not taunting, proof trough real life incidents.

[jgraz]

49. Also known as "anecdotal evidence"

You cite some Rambo fantasy, I cite the latest in toddler-on-toddler homicide. We can keep this up all night.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. And again with the "fantasy" rhetoric. LMAO!!! Thank you.

[jgraz]

53. The word is accurate. You read about some tragic death and imbue it with magic freedom sparkles

Then you fall right into the reactionary, manichean fantasy about this robber being some nameless, faceless vessel of evil, rather than a living, breathing example of our failure to provide for the least among us.

This is the kind of crap that usually comes with pro-gun advocacy. It's sad to see it on an allegedly liberal board.

[Hoopla Phil]

76. No, this is the harsh reality that we are not in a civilized society and handguns are useful

to protect the innocent lives of the law abiding.

[proteus_lives]

97. Please explain to me how the death of this criminal is "tragic"

He was a criminal threatening the lives of other people. If this was the first time he had ever robbed anyone, I'll eat my shoes.

I don't celebrate his death but to label it as "tragic" making a victim where there was none.

[Euromutt]

95. I'm invoking Arnold's Law

Arnold's Law:

As an internet forum discussion on gun control grows longer, the probability of a gun control proponent implying or asserting that a participating gun owner harbors fantasies of being a motion picture character approaches 1.

For background, see http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law (and yes, I am that same Euromutt mentioned on that page).

I'll add that in the JREF discussion that prompted user "Phrost" to create that page I stated:

Fairness does demand, of course, that there be a concomitant sanction on any gun rights proponent who uses the terms "nanny state," "(creeping) socialism," "communism," wheels out the bogus Hitler "this year will go down in history" quote, or the "In year X, country Y introduced gun control; some time after year X, Z million people died as a result of government policy" list.

I suppose that could be Gottlieb's Law, or something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gottlieb).

[dashrif]

62. I

don't know about this one this guy is a disabled vet with a back brace and the last 3 nights on the news people have been wighting/calling is saying he is a hero so I would say acquittal and yesterday the police arrested a 14 year old and a 31 year old in connection with it the 14 yo had the gun and the 31yo was in the getaway car evey one is losers in this one

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-robbery-accomplice-story,0,1213574.story



The court drama all started when the district attorney argued, if Ersland returns to work at the pharmacy, he should have access to a gun in case he's ever robbed again.

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacist-bail-story,0,6709299.story

[Shagbark Hickory]

98. How many thousands will he have paid for lawyers and other legal expeneses?

He would have come out ahead if he just handed over the cash drawer.

[Statistical]

104. Like Linda Raulerson came out ahead?

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/25805329.html

Authorities say at about 8:40 Tuesday night, an armed man walked into the Joy America Food Store at U.S. Highway 441 and Interstate 10.

In less than a minute, he stole an undisclosed amount of money and pointed a gun at 56-year-old Linda Raulerson.

Authorities later saw it all play out on surveillance video.

Gootee says, "You can see her showing him the cash drawer that it's all empty. And then she kind of steps back out of the way then you can see him literally shoot her."

Sometimes the criminal is high, or mentally ill, or doesn't want a witness or just doesn't give a shit.

Of course it doesn't matter. If he had just handed over the drugs and money and the criminal killed him it would be justification for you to ban guns.

Since he defended himself it is justification to ban guns.

This isn't the discovery channel where the animals are more afraid of you then you are of them. I know it is hard to believe but there are bad people in the world who don't give two shits about putting you in the ground.

[Shagbark Hickory]

108. Having grown up in crime ridden miami I learned a couple things about being mugged or robbed.

I learned that not having anything on you to give the robber is just as bad as trying to pull a gun on a robber. Both potentially fatal mistakes. No matter how bad the neighborhood is that you're going through you have to keep at least $20 on you at all times. Same for convenience stores.

The object is to let the mugger feel as though they were the victor. Then you have a much higher chance of living to see another day.

[X_Digger]

109. Disgusting

Go ahead an placate those robbers, reinforce that lawlessness, moran. Sickening.

[Shagbark Hickory]

112. Well it's either that or end up in a morgue. Sowwy. I'm not dirty harry, mate.

[X_Digger]

114. Sorry, you're adding to the problem, mate. n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

116. How's that, mate?

[X_Digger]

118. If you offer no resistance, and even 'pre-plan' to be robbed..

you turn yourself into not just a sheep, but a sheep looking for a wolf.

I just can't grok the mindset.

[Shagbark Hickory]

124. It's called common sense. Pick your battles. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

132. No, it's called "easy pickings".

[Euromutt]

106. There's a simple way to fix that

In Washington state, for example, we have RCW 9A.16.110 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110):

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

Emphasis in bold mine.

See how easy it is to not penalize people for defending themselves (or others) against violent crime?

[The Green Manalishi]

99. The only 'good' robber, rapist or carjacker

is one with a gaping exit wound.

[spin]

102. Welcome to DU...however...

I disagree with your post.

Killing or shooting an attacker is a last choice. If a robber endangers a clerk with a screwdriver and the clerk has access to a firearm and is across the counter and safe from immediate attack, the clerk may be able to resolve the situation with no shots being fired. Don't bring a screwdriver to a gun fight.

Every situation is different. Lethal force should only be used when truly necessary to stop an attack that would result in serious bodily injury or death.

[Shagbark Hickory]

103. Lethal force may be used inappropriately while the adrenaline is pumping. It often does n/t

[spin]

105. Unfortunately very true. That doesn't make it right or

in many states relieve you from legal consequences.

OKLAHOMA CITY – A pharmacist accused of first-degree murder in the shooting of a would-be robber was released on $100,000 bail Thursday in a case that has stirred debate about self-defense rights.

A condition of Jerome Ersland's release is that he have no access to guns.

Ersland, 57, is charged in the May 19 shooting of Antwun Parker, 16.

Prosecutors said Parker was on the floor in the pharmacy, unconscious and unarmed after being shot once by the pharmacist, when Ersland shot him five more times.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-shooting_29tex.ART.State.Edition1.50b463a.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. I've seen the video in the Ersland/Parker case. In *no* way was the second shooting justified.

Ersland can be seen going into the back of the store, bringing back a second gun and finishing off Parker.

Manslaughter, at the very least.

[spin]

111. I agree, but one interesting part of the story hasn't been covered much...

The pharmacist is a disabled vet form Desert Storm who wears a back brace and had back surgery six weeks before the incident.

This newspaper article gives a slightly different version of the events from the pharmacist's view:

Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy
BY JOHNNY JOHNSON
Published: May 22, 2009
Modified: May 27, 2009 at 3:45 pm



Pharmacist Jerome Ersland talks about a fatal shooting that occurred at Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City. Photo by Sarah Phipps, The Oklahoman

Jerome Ersland was back at work Thursday filling prescriptions and hoping that by taking the life of a 16-year-old boy two days earlier, he had saved others.

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet, Ersland related details of what he said was a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

"I just regret anybody would get killed,” Ersland said. "But if I wouldn’t have been here, there would have been three people killed — the other pharmacist and the two techs.”

****snip****

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m., Ersland said, two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing.

The robbers went in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

Two women who were working behind the counter ran for a back room where they would be safe, but Ersland said he couldn’t run. Ersland said he’s a veteran with disabilities from wounds he received in Operation Desert Storm, wears a cumbersome back brace and just had his latest back surgery six weeks ago.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear.

The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus "Judge.”

After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber, Ersland said, he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest as he kept going after the second robber.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.
http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710

Ersland's description of the events seems different from what the video shows. The video is shown during this TV news report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg

In my opinion, you shoot to STOP not to kill. It will probably all come down to what the jury thinks of the evidence. If Ersland can convince the jury that the boy was getting up when he shot him the second time, his disability may sway the jury.

It could be an interesting trial.

[Shagbark Hickory]

113. He was under the impression he had the right to murder the robber. Classic republican propoganda.

[X_Digger]

115. He had the right to use deadly force to stop him.

A trial will determine the end result.

[Shagbark Hickory]

117. ^^^ Classic republican propoganda ^^^

[X_Digger]

119. ^^^ Classic BS non-post ^^^ n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

120. Please direct me to the law that says you can shoot people that jump you on the street.. Please.

[X_Digger]

121. In Texas, Sec 9.32

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.32.00.html
eta: 9.32 not 9.30 & link

[Shagbark Hickory]

127. Determining what is aggravated robbery. Whoa! That's going to be an expensive court case!

Hope you got a lawyer in the family if you're in texas and plan to carry a gun with you!!! Vague as hell law that is.

[X_Digger]

129. I summarized.. here's the actual text.. both are covered

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

[Euromutt]

122. In Washington, RCW 9A.16.050

"Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

[Shagbark Hickory]

125. To bad you didn't read what I asked. Your response is null & void

because you have to be in your abode.

[ManiacJoe]

130. That would be a very wrong reading of the law as posted.

[Euromutt]

131. Are you aware of what the construction "either ... or" means?

In this case it means that the conditions of subsection (1) are different from subsection (2). Only subsection (2) requires you to be in your abode, subsection (1) does not.

Get thee to a remedial English class, and knock off the patronizing attitude.

[spin]

123. Florida statute 776.013

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM

[Shagbark Hickory]

126. Sounds like it's going to be an expensive court battle for you. I hope you're saving up for it.

I don't know about you but I'd rather get a boat and go fishing than have to meet with my lawyer behind bars while the jury deliberates.

[spin]

128. I don't believe you understand the "stand your ground law" at all...

Let me direct you to an interview with Marion Hammer a former NRA President who was greatly responsible for the law in Florida.

HAMMER: The castle doctrine law was signed into law on April 26th of this year. It did not take effect until October 1st because jury instructions had to be re-written. The jury system and the prosecutors in this state had started changing the law and jury instructions to simply give the edge to criminals. So because there was a delay in the legislation taking effect, the Brady Campaign, who had been unsuccessful in defeating the campaign, had decided to run a campaign and get a lot of publicity and in essence terrorize our tourists by attempting to make them think that if they came to Florida they could be shot. That is absolute nonsense.

The castle law doctrine has three major components. It restores the right of a law-abiding citizen to protect himself and his family in his home. It establishes the presumption that if someone breaks into your home or forcefully intrudes into your home of your occupied vehicle, that they are there to do harm and that you may therefore use force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and your family and you are not going to be badgered by a justice system that protects criminals.

The second thing that it does is it removes the duty to retreat when you are under attack by a criminal. The duty to retreat had been imposed by the system and essentially if someone had tried to drag a woman into an alley to rape her, the women – even though she might be licensed to carry concealed and ready to protect herself, the law would not allow her to do it. It required her to try to get away and run and be chased down by the perpetrator before she could then use force to protect herself. That was wrong. So the duty to retreat from any place that you have the right to be has been removed. If you are attacked, you can still run if you want to. But if you want to protect yourself, you can in effect stand your ground and protect yourself.

The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes. It is just wrong for a system to allow criminals who have attacked you to turn around and sue you when you defend yourself and do harm to them.

So that basically is what the law does. When you are outside the home you can only meet force with force and then deadly force only if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. In your home, they break in, you can use whatever force you choose.

GIACHINO: You mentioned that it applies inside the home and outside the home. Outside the home, your car is treated like your home. What about on the street? You mentioned the example of the woman being dragged into an alley. So long as she is in a public place, that she is lawfully entitled to be, she has the protection, right? If she is trespassing, then she is not afforded the same protection under the law, is that right?

HAMMER: You are absolutely correct. The law states that if you are in a place where you have a lawful place to be. It also specifically deprives an individual of these rights if they are committing a crime. So there is no way that criminals – street gangs in fact, could claim self-defense. Mutual combat has never been justified in the eyes of the law but those who like to ban guns attempted to say that this law would allow street gangs because they were legally in the street. Well combat in the streets is not legal. The law specifically says that you do not have the protection if you are engaged in unlawful criminal conduct.

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.

GIACHINO: Let me ask you about that because when you read the statute yourself, the law also allows a citizen to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. So how does the new law come into play, if at all, in an example say where someone breaks into a bank and they tie up to the tellers and steal the money and they are in the process of fleeing? If the citizen has witnessed this, do they have the right to use deadly force to stop that bank robber?

HAMMER: This bill really does not allow a citizen to do that. It does not speak to it because if you are in a place where you have legal right to be, you may meet force with force. So you would have to be under attack before you could use force, including deadly force, when you are in a bank or somewhere else. When it comes to helping someone else who is under attack, or the situation you described, those are going to be jury questions, just like they have always been jury questions. And this bill really did not address that situation specifically. It addressed self-defense and defense of your family.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

[Hoopla Phil]

133. Castle doctrine. Look it up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. So tell us, oh wise interpreter of gun laws, why *your* interpretations are correct?

And why are you so adamant the victims of crime should not have the temerity to resist?

All your posts read like they were press releases from the Society to Prevent Cruelty to Violent Felons

"Just give up your valuables, and the robber won't hurt you". Despite being given reports of violent offenders killing compliant victims, you cite unnamed 'experts' on how rolling over is a good idea.

"If you shoot an attacker while he's attempting to rob/rape/batter/murder you, you'll surely get charged with a
crime, despite what the law actually says. Trust me."

[cslinger59]

135. Is this the guy who went up to kid who was already down .....

and put five or six more rounds into him after he was no longer a threat?

If so, and if the information as presented (no more threat, not trying to get up to be a threat again etc.) was true then this guy is guilty of murder in my mind, no two ways about it.

You are trying to stop the action/the threat, not hurt/kill the person, even though that is usually how the action/threat is stopped.

[Euromutt]

136. No, different case

The guy you're thinking of was in Oklahoma; this one was in San Antonio, TX.