[T Syron]

[A.W.Dille]

Similiar situation down here in Concord, N.C. awhile back. Female clerk shot an armed man during a robbery attempt. Suspect was hit twice and called police himself. At last report the clerk was not going to be charged and was not going to lose her job, and she did have a conceal carry permit. Myself I open carry, not to provoke trouble but to hopefully prevent it. With 10 robberies in the last two weeks in the town I live close to, most armed robberies I feel safer carrying . Not that I'm out to kill anyone but if necessary I would, if I could prevent being killed or one of my family being killed. That is one of the things I was trained for in the Military. In fact I do not believe the Kroger employee was in the wrong, in fact he may have saved several lives due to his actions.

[Roar]

Well in USA its to late to ban GUNs , the whole country is allready full of it.

The sad truth about weapons is that actually there are more people killed by accident with guns (read children). This shuld be easy to fix if the owners learnt to keep them in a safe place where the children cant reach them.

Personally I dont mind if the bad guys get a bullet in their head. We had a tragedy here in Norway in July with a person going crazy, there it should have been someone with a tanks or something and flatten him to the ground.

[sdbob]

If the employee acted in defense-innocent. We just had a local 'shooting' here where the DA declared self defense. It involved a husband and wife quarrel and a boy friend. The one guy was going to attack the other witha wooden bat and the other shot him with an arrow!-dead on the porch. What we need is our gov. to protect us! We have had guns in our house since when. carrying a gun visable might be a detterent.

[2002Z4CSS]

One less POS on the streets.

[Region Warrior]

Originally Posted by Roar

Well in USA its to late to ban GUNs , the whole country is allready full of it.

The sad truth about weapons is that actually there are more people killed by accident with guns (read children).

There or here?
Way down compared to 20-30 yrs ago.
Includes 13-20 yr old gang bangers shooting each other.

http://www.notsoboringlife.com/rambl...idental-death/

[moto-d]

Hm. Kinda adds a new twist to "Clean-up in aisle seven" over the PA.

[Region Warrior]

Friend and his wife didnt believe in guns till she was beat'n and robbed in the parking lot leaving a grocery store in full day light.
Saw'm aproaching but couldnt get in car before he started wack'n her arms and head.
Think a rubber hose isnt deadly?
Spent 2 days in hospital with head injuries.
Why he stopped? Another customer in the lot came run'n with gun in hand.
The a-hole took off before a safe shot could be taken. Shame...

[Sidponcho]

Now is the time for ALL law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

[Deadhead]

Originally Posted by 400 4spd.

I agree, so here you go, Virginians. See I A. through F. and IV A.

Like as not if the guy did not possess an actual deadly weapon (says hard object) you would be in deep doo doo. Very strict standard. Perp's previous convictions also have no bearing. Justice fully served IMO. It will be interesting to see how the Union deals with it.

Case in Roanoke did let 2 bozo security guards off after they shot a guy who fled from a mall after shoplifting. They blasted him in the parking lot on the run. Judge said that since they were attempting to arrest someone who was believed to have committed a felony that is was OK. I have not been able to find any code section that supports this neither has my atty, so just case law at Circuit level. Meaningless.

An NRA member might get some help on any legal defense required. Wrongful death suit would be civil, so no help there.

[TTOP350]

One down and many many to go... I'm glad he's gone.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by 400 4spd.

In what country?

The USSR...LOL

Andrew

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by Roar

Well in USA its to late to ban GUNs , the whole country is allready full of it.

The sad truth about weapons is that actually there are more people killed by accident with guns (read children). This shuld be easy to fix if the owners learnt to keep them in a safe place where the children cant reach them.

Personally I dont mind if the bad guys get a bullet in their head. We had a tragedy here in Norway in July with a person going crazy, there it should have been someone with a tanks or something and flatten him to the ground.

It made me sick to hear about the shooting in Norway. What made it even more sad is how it all happened. By most accounts the gunman was unchallenged for over an hour and went around the island killing children and adults alike. By the time police showed up, more than an HOUR later, 77 people were dead and about 150 people were injured.

If just one adult on the island had a handgun this tragedy would never have been as extreme as it was.

The fact is that when you outlaw guns the only people left with guns are the government and the criminals. This leaves the average citizen without any efficient means of self defense. Police forces are largely reactionary, meaning they mostly show up after a crime has been committed. So the question is, what do you do while the police are in-route, assuming you can even make that call.

Andrew

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by Deadhead

Even in VA, the most pro-gun state in the Union, this guy could be convicted of murder. In order to shoot someone this way you must be in mortal danger yourself. At least here.

It is conceivable that if he asserted that he was in the act of arresting the guy or apprehending him while he was committing a felony he could get away with it, but as a civilian outside your home you are typically not permitted to shoot people who do not pose an immediate threat to your life.

Just sayin' know what the laws in your state are before you get all cowboy like that.

Robbing a Kroger WTF anyway?

This isn't VA. it is Indiana.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

Legal experts have confirmed this qualified as a forcible felony.

See http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html for more details.

[quick67bird]

Originally Posted by sdbob

If the employee acted in defense-innocent. We just had a local 'shooting' here where the DA declared self defense. It involved a husband and wife quarrel and a boy friend. The one guy was going to attack the other witha wooden bat and the other shot him with an arrow!-dead on the porch. What we need is our gov. to protect us! We have had guns in our house since when. carrying a gun visable might be a detterent.

I for one do not need the government to protect me. If some thug wants to attack me or my family I have no problem doing what I have to. I may be taking what you said out of context, but definitely do not want any government interference. What we need is laws that do not allow innocent people who are attacked and defend themselves to get sued by the attacker. That is ridiculous.

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by Roar

Well in USA its to late to ban GUNs , the whole country is allready full of it. It is estimated there are over 21 million firearms owned in the U.S.

The sad truth about weapons is that actually there are more people killed by accident with guns (read children). This shuld be easy to fix if the owners learnt to keep them in a safe place where the children cant reach them.

.

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html


More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. I read there were more children that drowned in bathtubs the accidentally killed by firearms.

[quick67bird]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

obviously a gun cant act alone
nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores
same should go for guns

You need to really think about what what you are saying. The states with the lowest crime rates seem to have the least restrictions on guns. Lets see CA, IL, and NY have some of the strictest gun laws and lets look at the violent crime rates in those states.

[quick67bird]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Accident Type Age
0-4 5-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Total
All Autos 900 1,500 10,500 13,300 9,200 2,700 4,900 43,000
Falls 70 70 210 950 1,900 1,700 11,300 16,200
Poisoning 60 40 800 6,800 3,200 300 500 11,700
Pedestrian 250 300 750 1,300 1,400 450 850 5,300
Drowning 450 350 700 1,250 650 230 270 3,900
Fires, burns 400 260 240 700 800 500 700 3,600
Suffocation by ingested object
100 20 30 250 400 500 2,100 3,400
Firearms 20 60 150 190 110 30 40 600
Poisoning by gases, vapors
10 10 70 120 80 40 70 400
All other causes 700 400 1,100 3,000 3,200 1,600 4,500 14,500
TOTAL 2,700 2,700 13,800 26,600 19,500 7,600 24,400 97,300

More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. I read there were more children that drowned in bathtubs the accidentally killed by firearms.

Good points. I was just about to respond, but you saved me having to do the research. Thanks.

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

i dont disgree on guns but they should protect the home only
if everyone had guns the world would be chaotic

So if you stay at home you are protected, but if you leave you home you should be defenseless? The 2nd Amendment states "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean only at home. State Laws permit those with a CCW to bear arms outside of their homes for protection.

Back in the Wild West days when almost everyone had firearms it was a more civil time.
I recommend you read the book "More Guns and Less Crime" by Dr. John Lott that disproves your assumptions.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

.....

Back in the Wild West days when almost everyone had firearms it was a more civil time.
I recommend you read the book "More Guns and Less Crime" by Dr. John Lott that disproves your assumptions.

Very true. It is common misconception, mostly due to Western movies, that the Old West was indeed Wild. In actuality, the opposite is quite true. In fact, the violence actually increased when "The LAW" or in that case the federal magistrate arrived in a given territory.

There are also numerous studies that show that when a given state liberalizes (makes more free) their gun laws, crime goes down. That's because a certain element of the criminal society ceases to commit crime because there is a greater risk of getting shot.

Also from personal experience I can tell you that when I go to the gun range, I meet the nicest, most polite people in Memphis. Gee, I wonder if that's because everyone knows that everyone else has a gun? :-)

Andrew