Thank Michael, that is the point I have tried to make, not quite as clearly as you have.
Thank Michael, that is the point I have tried to make, not quite as clearly as you have.
If he had some (any??) type of training, CCW is for self defence. I don't think someone running away from you could be used as an excuse to shoot at someone.
What do you mean by this? I'm not sure I fully understand. Do you think it should be more difficult to get a CCW permit in Oklahoma?
Oklahoma City businessman Jack Gray says he was nearly killed
Wednesday afternoon when a gem dealer opened fire on three gunmen after
they robbed him of $350,000 in gems and fled in a car.
"I was driving north on May avenue when this car ran a red light.
As I swerved to avoid the car, my passenger side window exploded and I
thought I had been shot in the side of the face," recalled Gray, owner of
Standard Roofing Company, 19 NW 16th street.
He pulled over and found no blood but the window was shattered and so was
the dash of his Porsche. Gray took it to an insurance agent who later told
him that a passenger would have been killed and he missed being killed by
only a few inches.
"He told me I'm one of the luckiest unlucky guys he knows," added Gray
who's angry at the gem dealer for shooting into heavy traffic on North May.
"First of all, they were fleeing and their backs were turned to him and he
shouldn't have been shooting," said Gray who thinks the dealer owes him
some car repair. "It's also made me an opponent of the conceal-carry law,"
he added, explaining that he has four guns in his home. Gray said to pull a
gun and defend yourself in your home is one thing but it's another to be
shooting in public where innocent by-standers such as himself could have
been hit. Gray said the insurance and car repair people found the slug in his
car. After it shattered the passenger window, it smashed into the dash in
front of the steering wheel and landed on the floor behind the driver's seat.
He's turned things over to Oklahoma City police who are still hunting for the
three robbers.
It's not clear if the gem dealer could be under investigation for shooting at the three gunmen who fired no shots during the Wednesday afternoon heist.
I wonder is this guy would have a different opinion if it were his $350,000 in
jewels that got jacked?
http://www.ktok.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119211&article=6770936
That's like saying one is against "driving laws" because they cause people to die (in car accidents).
Since the thieves didn't drop the loot, the crime was still under way as they were driving off. That's not fleeing. Fleeing is when you drop the loot and run. Fleeing does not justify the use of deadly force. However, I do remember reading somewhere in Oklahoma law that if there is no expectation that your property will be recovered, some force is justified to prevent or halt such a theft. If someone knows where it is in the law, please post it.
Woody
Woody
As far as SDA and other similar laws (castle doctrine and such) if they were running they were not a threat. It does not matter what loot they have if they are no longer a threat to you or your family deadly force is not justified.
I fully believe that the gem dealer is an idiot. You can't shoot after the threat of grave bodily injury or death has passed.
Anytime guidelines are suggested and implemented, they're sole purpose is to limit access, not encourage. Every person or entity that has written laws or set guidelines has ensured that they can be included as one of the anointed and anyone else just below their ability is eliminated.
I know many people that I would not be comfortable with them having a weapon. I have seen quite a few of them at the range. I will not let my bias toward them turn into a reason to discriminate against them. It does force me to become better at my shooting skills and my awareness of whats going on around me
Once you cross the line of endangerment of others, then you relinquish your right. There will always be concerns of safety, but I don't think many will dispute the fact that we are not safer now, even after all of these years of limiting gun ownership in the name of safety.
I totally disagree with this statement. Other than the mentally incompetent, there should be no gauge to forbid anyone from the right of bearing of arms prior to them proving themselves unworthy.
Anytime guidelines are suggested and implemented, they're sole purpose is to limit access, not encourage. Every person or entity that has written laws or set guidelines has ensured that they can be included as one of the anointed and anyone else just below their ability is eliminated.
I know many people that I would not be comfortable with them having a weapon. I have seen quite a few of them at the range. I will not let my bias toward them turn into a reason to discriminate against them. It does force me to become better at my shooting skills and my awareness of whats going on around me
Once you cross the line of endangerment of others, then you relinquish your right. There will always be concerns of safety, but I don't think many will dispute the fact that we are not safer now, even after all of these years of limiting gun ownership in the name of safety.
The *appropriate* response is to (a) Sue the shooter for damages for his negligence / recklessness, and (b) for the DA to charge the shooter with a crime(s) commensurate with and appropriate for, the level of negligence displayed, and the degree of harm caused. In this case, something along the lines of criminal mischief & discharging a firearm in city limits. If the facts are as presented, this dipstick needs to cool his heels for about 90 days for extreme recklessness.
The appropriate response is NOT to begin opposing a sensible gun law which is also a constitutional right - the 'victim' here is almost as dumb as the shooter. And yep, dollars to donuts, this shooter was NOT a CCW holder.
The appropriate response is NOT to begin opposing a sensible gun law which is also a constitutional right - the 'victim' here is almost as dumb as the shooter. And yep, dollars to donuts, this shooter was NOT a CCW holder.
You Sir have a very valid point. Making decisions based on incomplete/inaccurate information is a dangerous path. All that you have to go by at this point is the opinion of an angry victim of an unfortunate circumstance. Is he telling the story as it actually happened, or is he telling it how he wants everyone to see it?
Similar threads
