What do you think? Is this kind of abuse on the part of a legitimate gun owners as rare as the pro-gun crowd pretend?But [Prosecutor Jim] Kanatzar said the shooting didn’t qualify as self-defense for several reasons: Jones didn’t have a weapon; he was outside the store; the clerks had Jones outnumbered; police were on the way; and Jones had tried to flee.
“The possession and use of a firearm requires a high level of responsibility,” Kanatzar said. “We’re alleging the defendant resorted to the use of deadly force in a situation where it was not necessary and therefore not justified.”
Please leave a comment.
Check out this post, Mike, thought you might find it interesting:
ReplyDeleteAs We Age: A Short Argument Against Gun Possession
If it were that rare, why would they need to change the law of self-defence?
ReplyDeleteMaybe they were just compensating for the size of their penises.
ReplyDeleteFWM, You know I love it when you make penis jokes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that link too. That is one entertaining story.