[eotp]

From The Commercial Appeal in Memphis:

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/todays_editorial/article/0,1426,MCA_537_2152471,00.html

Editorial 8/04: Gun owners on notice: Know the law
August 4, 2003

A RECENT series of violent encounters in Memphis illustrates how critical it is that gun owners understand the circumstances under which deadly force is legally justified and the risks that are posed by weapons in the home.

Memphians have defended their homes, their property and in some cases their lives in encounters with thieves that ended in firearms use. There have been at least six such cases since mid-June, all of which prompted reviews by the Shelby County District Attorney General's office. In four of the shootings, all of them fatal, prosecutors determined the citizens' actions were justified.

Civilians who keep firearms for home defense must weigh that option against the possibility of accidents as well as thefts that put more guns in the hands of criminals. A study last year by the Harvard School of Public Health showed children between the ages of five and 14 in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership - including Mississippi and Arkansas - were 16 times more likely to die from the unintentional discharge of a firearm than their peers in the five states with the lowest rates. They were seven times more likely to die of suicide by gun and three times more likely to die from gun homicide.

Gun owners are limited in the use of their weapons. It is legally permissible to fire a gun in self-defense only when the shooter has reason to believe he or she faces an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and only when that threat is verifiable.

Even then, things may turn out differently from what the shooter intended. A 22-year-old Memphian was charged last month with reckless endangerment after he fired six blasts from a 12-gauge shotgun at a man he caught breaking into his shed. Police said a blast from the shotgun shattered a bedroom window in the house next door. Two children who were sleeping in the room weren't hit.

The man told police the burglar was armed and had shot at him as he fled - an account of the incident that differed from that of a witness. There may have been an opportunity for the shooter to avoid a violent encounter.

That opportunity was not so evident in other recent shootings. David Ronald Washington, 44, identified by police as an East Memphis "cat burglar," was shot to death June 13 after he broke into a home. Police said Washington was struggling with the home's owner when he was killed.

The same day, Kevin Martrell Humphrey, 19, was shot to death and another man was injured when they forced their way into a home in North Memphis. On July 9, William Ronnie Payne, 45, died under similar circumstances at a home in Westwood. On July 11, Ricky Ricardo Wilborn, 21, was killed and another man wounded by a man they were robbing at gunpoint, police said.

In all but one case, the District Attorney General's office declined to file charges after reviewing the circumstances. Still under review is a shooting last month that apparently wounded a home invasion robber in North Memphis.

Police said the robber left a trail of blood outside the home after his victim pulled a gun from a china cabinet and began firing. The 65-year-old woman told police she had given the robber $200 and he demanded more. She fired at him, she said, as he was running toward her.

Although the incident appears to be another case of a gun owner acting within his or her rights, Shelby County Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons has issued an appropriate warning His office is ready to prosecute such cases when the evidence warrants action.

It is never legal to use deadly force solely to protect or recover property, Gibbons notes. Taking a human life cannot be justified on those grounds.

[Carlos Cabeza]

It is never legal to use deadly force solely to protect or recover property, Gibbons notes. Taking a human life cannot be justified on those grounds

Need to keep those insurance companies in business.

Edited to agree with cslinger, I guess I am bitter over numerous B & E's, lost goods that I "WORKED" for, and the fact that the criminal justice system is so light on the people who commit these crimes. IF it were known to be dangerous to ones existence to burglarize a home or business, it might discourage some.

[cslinger]

Just for the record. Although I do believe there are people who need to be removed from the gene pool. I don't think it is worth taking somebody's life over a TV set. Not so much for their benefit as for your own. We may all have made that mental decision to use deadly force if necessary but I for one would rather not be burdoned with the emotional baggage that would most certainly come with it.

Now if they so much as turn the channel to CNN I would have to consider that an attack or my safety.:D Just kidding.

Seriously though. I think all of us should put ours and our family saftey as the number one consideration and I think you should err on the side of caution, but if there is anyway to avoid taking a life I think that is the route to take for your own mental sake.

If the thought of taking another persons life doesn't bother you in the least......talk to a Priest, a close friend, your Mom.....:scrutiny:

Chris

[Poodleshooter]

It's the thought of being sued in civil court by the deceased's scumbag family that makes my knees quiver at the thought of deadly force. Think about the family that bred a degenerate thief getting lots of your money directly or indirectly, and then being able to breed more degenerates.
Now that's nauseating.

[HBK]

Technically, I believe that we have a right to defend our property. It's one of the ideals on which our nation was founded. However, realistically, I wouldn't shoot someone over a television set, especially since I have insurance. It wold cost me more in the long run to do society a favor and shoot the thief or burgular than it would to let him leave with my stuff. Sad. I think the emotional baggage would be less if you were to kill a criminal predator, but I could be wrong. A life is a life.

[TallPine]

So what's the deal here, anyway?

Does this mean that you MAY NOT confront someone who is stealing or vandalizing your property ...?

Not in my universe, it doesn't. I damn well am not going to sit around and hide for 45 minutes until a deputy arrives.

Suppose, you confront a thief in the act, and said thief responds with an attack on your person, so you shoot in self defense. So by some stretch of the imagination does that make you at fault because you "initated" the confrontation?

IMO, the thief initiated the confrontation when they came onto your property to steal.

A world where you legally have to hide under the bed while someone robs you blind is not a world that I want to live in.

[HBK]

You're right, Tallpine. I menat that if I confronted the thief and he ran away carrying something, I would just let him go. No way am I going to hide in my room and have him take what he wants. If he tries to pull a gun or other weapon, I would definately shoot him. If he runs, I would just let him go and call the police. If he presents what the police would call "no threat" and I were to shoot him, I would probably be bankrupted by the lawsuits.

[Standing Wolf]

A study last year by the Harvard School of Public Health showed children between the ages of five and 14 in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership - including Mississippi and Arkansas - were 16 times more likely to die from the unintentional discharge of a firearm than their peers in the five states with the lowest rates. They were seven times more likely to die of suicide by gun and three times more likely to die from gun homicide.

More of the same old leftist extremist fake numbers.

Knowing the law is one of the responsibilities involved in keeping and bearing arms.

[Autolite]

I applaud you moral conviction that it isn't worth taking a life to protect property. It is encouraging to know that there are those still out there who hold such respect for their fellow man. On a side note, could you let us know your home address and the type of TV you have, just curious is all. :)

Seriously though, wouldn't the world be a much better place if we all thought that taking a life was not worth 'property'? If only the BG's felt that way ...

[Carlos]

Well, tell you what. If I find somebody in the house, I don't know whether he's there to take stuff, or cause me serious bodily harm, or both. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Seems like Oregon and other states see it that way too.

Good answer, Poodleshooter.

[NapAttack]

Respect is earned, or at least that's what I was always taught. It is earned by your deeds and your actions. I spent time out of my life to earn the money to buy that property.

Let's put it simply. I earn $20 an hour. That TV cost $500 (If it was cheap a criminal wouldn't want it). That means I took 25 hours of my life working for that TV. 25 hours I could have been with my family, my children. Now a criminal is going to come along and steal that 25 hours of my life? Sure insurance will cover it, insurance that I spend more time away from my family to pay for. When it's stolen and I file a claim, they'll raise my rates. So where do you get the idea that just because that criminal is alive I should respect his life? He is going to steal 25 hours of my life simply because I have something he wants? Does he respect my life?

What is so precious about a life? Put a sperm and an egg together and you've got a life, so what? What is precious is what that person has done with their life. So you're trying to tell me that a criminal who has no respect for life is just as precious as say, a nurse, a father, a mother. So you say I don't know them, I don't know their circumstances so how can I judge them. I say this, I've been poor, I've known times when I didn't know where my next meal was coming from, I remember hunting coke bottles as a kid for the deposit to get milk money for school. Guess what, during all those times I never once stole from someone else. I respected them and their property that they worked for and they respected me.

Emotional baggage, bushwah. I would be proud to have stopped someone who would steal from another person. As everyone should be. If they happen to die in the process then that's their decision. If they hadn't been trying to steal from me in the first place they would not have been in any jeopardy whatsoever.

[blades67]

I've found that having a $50 TV and a $1000 Doberman keeps the TV in the house. Stupid criminals keep the Dobe fed.:evil:

[XLMiguel]

4/6 deemed good shooting - It's not all that surprising, as statistics have shown that private citizens are far less likely to shoot someone erroneously than the police. Please note that that's not a knock on the cops, the same stats recognize that cops are placed in dangerous situations far, far more often that private citizens, and that potential lethal force situations come with the territory.

NapAttack is on an interesting tangent. I have long felt that someone who steals something significant that took you a long time to earn the $$ for is stealing part of your life. Let's say you make $60K/yr (pre tax, no less), and some scummie steals your car/truck that cost you$25-30K, something that takes more than half a year of your time & labor to pay for.

Now consider that the potential of a 'grave bodily injury', something that would put you in the hospital and whack your abilty to make a living for half a year would justify a lethal response/defense in most states, so what's the difference, really? I'm not saying that I'd shoot 'em out of hand, but if confronted & they didn't stand down immediately . . . scared for my life, don'cha know. I know the arguement about 'insurance', but that just means they're stealing a little from a lot us instead of seriously injuring one person (and petty theives should be shot for their lack of ambition-:evil: :neener: )

I don't know just where to draw the line on what consititutes 'significant loss' and justifies lethal force (for me it's somewhere between TV and car), but I do know I don't have much use for theives and wouldn't mourn their removal from society.

[DMK]

I agree that shooting somebody over property has some serious moral and ethical problems. However, returning to your home or waking up and finding somebody in your house stealing stuff has now raised the level of danger drastically. You don't know whether you have a scared kid who will fall apart and cry or cornered vermon who will draw a hidden weapon and kill you.

I say leave plenty of avenue of escape, but present your weapon and make it unmistakably clear that you are willing to use it. Hopefully, you never will.

Never shoot at an escaping criminal. Assuming that you even miss the neighbors and hit him, gun wounds in the back look very bad for you in both civil and criminal court.

[keyhole]

To encounter someone in your house, you must figure that the BG's are willing to do whatever it takes, in the comission of their crime.

The average BG, will look to avoid contact with the owners, and run away, which is why audible alarms work so well.

Always have a plan worked out, well in advance, of what you will do when confronted. Practice with what you will use, document it, ammo, etc.,.

Also have an atty in mind, and who you will call to get you out of jail, should it come to that, and to be on hand when you are questioned. Cover all the bases, and it might:banghead: keep you out of court, and from spending your kids inheritance. Doubt it, but hey, you have to keep a positive mindset.

[Delmar]

:rolleyes: Yet another District Attorney demonstrating living proof that he/she ought to sell their fancy house in their gated community and put their assets in the grass with the rest of us. It's darned easy to make all these assumptions as to who should be charged for shooting a thief or not or where you may place your bullets.

I'm willing to wager that most of these college trained chimpanzees have never seen the elephant, and certainly not in their own home. As Keyhole points out-if the person is in your home while you are there (the car in the driveway is a big tip off!) and is willing to come in anyway, they want me to wait to see what they do???

Unless they present me with a list or make an appointment, I am assuming everything near and dear to ME and MY HOUSE is fair game to him/her/them, and will act accordingly.

I'm sure whoever is making up these rules has the homeowner SOMEWHERE in their thoughts, but giving free parking to the bad people assists no law abiding person, and all but hands the keys to my home and everything in it to anyone with the moxy to break a window or force a door without consequences-all that needs to be done is to run away if challanged.

[YankeeRebel]

A few years ago Tom Gresham, sp(?), in his radion program "Gun Talk" answered a question about shooting someone. His answer was that when you pull the trigger and that bullet starts down the barrel you had better think that you just bought a new expensive car. And that is if you have a "good shoot". Of course the price goes up if there are question about it. Tom then went on to ask just what are we trying to do in such a situtation. We are attempting to stop the BG. That can go from shouting at the person to just short of pulling the trigger to affect out goal. In other words you don't always have to pull the trigger to stop it and protect you and the family.

One thing that Tom and other have repeated is that if you do shoot the BG inside of your house and they then run outside and droped dead, do not drag them back inside. Leave them lie. You are just asking for trouble. The police can determined just what happened and you compound your problems by tampering with the evidence.

[GSB]

It is never legal to use deadly force solely to protect or recover property

Repeat after me: "I thought he had a weapon. I was in fear for my life. I shot in self defense."

[willyjixx]

i have a big argument with yelling at em an letting mr bad guy get away.

statistics and jails prove criminals return to the scene of the crime. that an now if someone was waving there gun around trying to run em off he knows you have a gun and didnt use it. he could come back with a few friends or his own weapon. to many what ifs. if your rightly scared do the deed.

i say after the family sues you for their poor nogoodnik counter sue for emotional damages an now you have a phobia of your own safety

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

If you shoot someone running away from your house with a television, you are simply executing a criminal.

You are executing a criminal for a petty crime without the ascent of judge or jury. This is usually referred to as vigilantism.


So if it was acceptable to execute a burgler in the act, what expectations should you have if you cause a car accident, or make a finacial mistake that ruins someone's savings? Should they be allowed to kill you on the spot?

[Autolite]

You're mixing apples and oranges. "Burgleries" and "car accidents" don't compare, unless the law recognises the "He-broke-into-your-home-and-stole-your-TV-by-accident" defence...

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

I said "cause" a car accident, meaning negligence was involved. Which a criminal court and civil court would penalize you for.

In other words, if the only criteria for executing someone is that they have apparently taken or destroyed your property, no one will be safe. We have juries to make sure that the "guilty party" is both the right one, and guilty. We have judges to make sure that punishment is equitable, not the gallows for stealing bread.


Do you really think our society would function better if I could kill you because I SAID you took my TV?


Open that can of worms and it becomes acceptable to kill people involved in accidents "because they appeared drunk" or execute an accountant that "seemed to be embezzling". It's all the same thing, the open window and dark night doesn't change the ethics or morality.

[NapAttack]

So if it was acceptable to execute a burgler in the act, what expectations should you have if you cause a car accident, or make a finacial mistake that ruins someone's savings? Should they be allowed to kill you on the spot? Does not compute. A car accident or a financial mistake was just that a mistake or an accident. Where is the intent? Do you shoot people for making mistakes? No, certainly not and neither would I. But turn it around, if I deliberately rammed someone in my car then they could say they were in fear of their life. What more dangerous weapon is there than a 3000+ lb automobile and they would be perfectly justified in shooting me. Stealing someone's savings is a bit less applicable because then you are an accomplice in the stealing, you wen't along with it otherwise how could they get the money? In other words, if the only criteria for executing someone is that they have apparently taken or destroyed your property, no one will be safe. Yes, you would be perfectly safe as long as you didn't try to steal someone else's property. We have juries to make sure that the "guilty party" is both the right one, and guilty. Really? When the lawyers and judges decide what the jury is allowed to see? Want to discuss lawyers that make a lot of money convincing juries that black is white? We have judges to make sure that punishment is equitable, not the gallows for stealing bread. And judges aren't allowed to "set aside" a juries' verdict or "direct" a verdict of guilty or innocent. Besides which, someone tries to steal food from me or my family, quite possibly allowing my children to go hungry, is definitely up for a lead enema.It's all the same thing, the open window and dark night doesn't change the ethics or morality. You're right. A criminal steals from me this time and finds out that I won't fight back then what's to keep him coming back time and time again? Most drunk drivers continue to drive drunk because they are not punished or punished very little and continue until they are finally killed themselves or kill someone else. If drunk drivers knew they would be shot and killed for harming someone by driving drunk how long would it be before they quit driving drunk. Not very long, either they'd quit or they'd be dead. Accountants and others embezzle because they know at worst they'll spend a few months or (unlikely) years in a comfortable jail cell and come out rich either because they've hid the money or they can go on the talk circuit or write a book. Very few people today do the right thing because it's right. Most of the time they'll do the right thing because they're afraid they'll get caught and punished.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Form your lynch mob. Kill anyone you "think" is committing a crime, no matter how minor. See how long you last.

[TexasVet]

It is never legal to use deadly force solely to protect or recover property
Please add "when in a city or state run by socialists, liberals or bleeding hearts" after that phrase.:rolleyes:

[Delmar]

SelfProclaimedExpert
I think you are missing the point being made here. It's not about killing people you maybe just do not like. Some of the threads correctly point out that burglars frequently return to the scene of the crime. I can certainly verify that. I worked for several years for an alarm company, and in many, many incidences, peoples homes were burglarized, the insurance company paid up after the deductable was met, and the bad guys returned to steal again, knowing brand new TV's, jewelry and other hot ticket items were in the home just waiting for the taking.
You are living under the false assumption that the bad guys are going to be caught all or at least most of the time-not true. You're also under the false impression that if caught, the thief is going to do a long time behind bars. Not happening unless the burglar commits some heinous crime like rape or murder in the process.
Now, if the burglar knows he is not likely to get caught, and if caught, he is not likely to do much time, where is the incentive for them to stop?
You, like many, seem to glaze over the crime and side with the "rights" of the criminal to life, liberty and pursuit of whatever you own without much sympathy for the victim.
I will tell you that I have no sympathy for a burglar who is shot in the commission of a crime-they were clearly in a place they had absolutely no right to be in. The homeowner is the loser in any case-their castle has been violated and if in the commission of the crime, the homeowner has to shoot the burglar, they have to live with that, plus a grand jury investigation to determine whether or not they did the right thing in a moment of extreme terror, something that none of the jury members ever had to face. Would I shoot? That depends on a lot of things-I'm not likely to shoot at some kid stealing my garden hose off the front spigot, but if they holler threats at me as they are running away, that would be a mistake.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Delmar,

The point here is that some people want to be legally sanctioned to execute burglars to decrease the incidence of theft.

You have added the new twist that a burglar, who didn't threaten your life, may want to in the future, and should also be killed. I think you can see that should also extend to anyone who is likely to put your family's lives at risk - anyone who says "I'll kill you!", or a recklessly driving neighbor who has been warned. Statistically, he is much more likely to kill your kids than the returning robber, so you would be well within your rights capping him.

Of course, if someone told me that I better slow down or he'd kill me, that would be a threat to my life, so I would have legal authority to off them. (See where this is going?)

Once the shooting starts, more people can make justified claims of having their lives threatened. Civil war.

I don't particularly care about the rights of criminals. But I don't trust YOU to decide who a criminal is and if they should live or not. That's anarchy - the worst form of society there is.

There has never been a society that worked as you describe. There never will be. The power to execute always leads to either destruction or an oppresive ruling class. Use a little imagination and you'll see that this isn't a simple problem. George, Ben, James and the rest knew what they were doing when they decided in favor of jury law and rights.

[rock jock]

It is never legal to use deadly force solely to protect or recover property, Gibbons notes.
Well, Mr. Gibbons, you should travel on down to Texas for a spell. We would take exception to that statement.

[Carlos Cabeza]

INSIDE MY HOME + MY FAMILY SLEEPING = DANGEROUS !

[Delmar]

You have added the new twist that a burglar, who didn't threaten your life, may want to in the future, and should also be killed.

If you want to just follow him around in your house after he kicks in your door or window to see what he/they are going to do, I wish you luck.

I think you can see that should also extend to anyone who is likely to put your family's lives at risk
Did I say that? I thought you did?

I don't particularly care about the rights of criminals. But I don't trust YOU to decide who a criminal is and if they should live or not. That's anarchy - the worst form of society there is.
Well now-I'm not smart enough to know that a person who forced their way into my house is a criminal? Who are YOU??

In my book, I will not stand there and try to figure out what this stranger is doing in my home and try to determine if they are or are not hostile. That can get you, and the people you love in your home with you, killed. You want to take that chance-may God be with you and yours, but don't expect the world to play by your rules.

What will very likely happen is they will be looking down the muzzle of a large caliber weapon. Not my intention to kill them, but I will hold them for the LEO's, and I will do everything in my power to hold them there until the officers arrive. If I have to use force to do so, I will use whatever is necessary. If they die, they did so because they did not follow clear direction.

Personally, I would love to see them stand trial so the whole town knows what a stoopid dirtbag they are. But they will face punishment in my home if I happen to be their intended victim, either from the courts or worse, because I do not plan to be a victim.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Delmar,

If you read what I wrote carefully you'll see that my comments are inline with the last thing you typed. I'm am wholely in favor of being able to shoot in self defense, like you. I am totally against shooting soully in defense of property, which is what I've been talking about and was in response to Napattack's first post.

What you describe is a citizen's arrest, not hanging a horsethief. What Napattack describes is assasination. My comments are directed at the concept of legally executing thieves, not acting in self defense. So I took your objections to be also in favor of executing theives.

Further, all my examples are also based on the slippery slope that surrounds the vigilantee execution of theives, NOT immediate self defense shootings.

[HankB]

When someone enters another's home without permission, it is reasonable to conclude that person is there for no good reason - this pretty well establishes criminal intent. So . . . should the homeowner subject himself and his family to additional risks by the process of seeking to do minimal harm to the bad guy, or should the homeowner deal with the situation in the most effective way possible?

IMHO using all available force on someone who is unquestionably an uninvited intruder in your home is a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation, almost all the time.

[Delmar]

Well, Self Proclaimed, maybe I understand your position a bit better, but you might want to not paint yourself in a corner with such an absolute such as you will never shoot to stop a thief who is "just taking property".

For example-you are enjoying yourself in, say a National Park and you are days away from civilization and you come back from a long hike. There are people stealing your supplies and your vehicle.
They have not threatened you directly, but the loss of food and supplies and your vehicle could easily put your life in peril without them. Your cell phone is worthless because there are no cell towers close enough.
Not a hypothetical question-it has happened.....still think you are not going to shoot? All they are taking is your property......

And true-its not your house, maybe your motorhome or tent, but I would trust a lot of people who post here to do the right thing when the time comes. If I read this thread thread and many others like it here correctly, you will see the frustrations of those who have been broken into multiple times, some have been or have nearly been attacked in their own place, and the police have caught a few, but they can only do so much. And for us lay people, its so easy to go to the range where you know the boundaries and the rules, yet quite a different planet when it comes to an actual breakin in your own home.

The only personal experience I have with a breakin was an attempted one at my front door early morning one weekend. Dog started growling which was unusual for him and headed downstairs. I grabbed a 12 gauge pump and followed. I could see and hear my front door knob turning and what sounded like a shoulder pushing against the door. I said nothing, but stood to one side of the vestibule and racked a buckshot load in the chamber. Bad guy did the right thing-hauled his posterior down the side walk at what sounded like Mach 2. I promise you-had he broken the door down after that warning, his mama would have been crying. I figure that was fair warning, and anyone coming thru the door meant to do me harm even though I let them know I was there, aware of their presence, and willing to do something about it. Should I have waited until he got in? I don't think so-not if I could have prevented him from making a big mistake. Hope he learned from it-I would feel awful if he got into someone elses home and did something terrible. Wife called the cops and got a fair description of his backside from upstairs as he ran near the streetlight, but we never heard a word.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

I'm glad we are seeing eye to eye on this.

I have to ask, are you sure the guy at your front door wasn't your drunk neighbor trying to get his keys in the wrong house?

[fallingblock]

"are you sure the guy at your front door wasn't your drunk neighbor trying to get his keys in the wrong house?":rolleyes:

If it was a neighbor, what would his respond to someone trying to break down his own door be?

Who would be responsible for his actions?

Delmar didn't say he blasted the potential intruder through the door...he said he was ready for an attack. There is a huge difference.

If it was the neighbor...why would he run away from 'his' house?

[Autolite]

You claim that you are "totally against shooting soully in the defence of property". Would you be willing to make that claim publically, say with a sign on your front lawn proclaiming such? I suspect that there is a large percentage of the population that shares your viewpoint, but I have yet to meet any one of them that would make their feeling in that respect public knowledge ... (along with their home address also, of course) ...

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

It's not an "antigun scenerio". Delmar heard someone bumping against his door. He didn't see him, and was not about to shoot him through the door. (Some people in this thread would have, though). I imagine anyone would sober up and move away quickly after the shotgun noise.

I mention it just to underline that the presumption endangerment shouldn't be leapt to. If you shoot someone because you really seem to be in danger (rather than just in your house, or taking your stuff) you are much less likely to be involved in a negligant shooting, like the man who shot his out-late daughter or the dead exchange student in Texas. I doubt either of those shooters actually felt "endangered" when they pulled the trigger.

This is just not a light decision.

[Delmar]

Hey Self-if that was my neighbor, he shrunk and lost about 50 years judging from the way he was running (my neighbor is well over 70!) and is a tea totalling Baptist. Naw, wasn't him. And here's the thing-this kind of scenario happens a lot across America every day-somewhere, with very similar results.
I think that is pretty much proof that the vast majority of Americans who own firearms can be trusted to handle and employ them when the situation arises and to do so correctly. Despite what the anti gunners say!
True, you are going to have the occasional tragedy, but only 20% of the gunowners in America fired through the front door, I don't think there is enough ambulances in America to respond to all of the scenes!
Don't let the occasional bad judgement call rattle ya-its not a wonder weapon, its a tool.