Monday, January 19, 2015

A Rare Legitimate DGU - In New Jersey of All Places

Dark Robber Gun Barrel

--( The owner of a northern New Jersey supermarket shot and killed a would-be robber who pointed a gun at him.
Essex County prosecutors say the shooting at the Neighborhood Deli Supermarket in Newark occurred around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday. They say no charges have been filed against the store owner, who legally possessed the gun he used in the shooting, but would not release his name.
Prosecutors say 46-year-old Newark resident Mark Robinson pulled out a gun shortly after he entered the Irvine Turner Boulevard store. They say he pointed the weapon at the store owner, who then fired at Robinson.
Robinson was taken to a hospital, but was pronounced dead there a short time later. The store owner was not injured.
Prosecutors say Robinson’s gun was found at the scene.


  1. "A Rare Legitimate DGU - In New Jersey of All Places "

    Not so rare as all that apparently. Taking on someone with an AK pistol with a regular handgun. That woman has big brass ones....

    "For the second time this week, someone working at a city business fired a weapon in self-defense against armed robbery suspects, police said Friday.
    Shortly before 8:30 p.m. Thursday two men burst into a variety story in the 400 block of Central Avenue, with one man ordering customers onto the floor and threatening to shoot if the owner did not give the pair money. One of the suspects, 23-year-old Durell Hearn, was wielding an AK-47 pistol and fired a warning shot, department spokesman Sgt. Ron Glover said.
    The owner of the business, who was behind the counter, reached for a handgun she keeps in the store and fired a number of rounds at Hearn and the other man, Arthur Price, 50.
    The woman, whose name was not released, struck Hearn in the leg as the two men fled the store. Hearn fired a shot as he fled but did not strike anyone, Glover said, adding that Hearn’s gun was later found on the sidewalk outside the store."

    "On Tuesday, the owner of a grocery store on Irvine Turner Boulevard shot and killed an armed man who entered the business, demanding cash. Neither he nor the woman in Thursday’s incident face criminal charges, authorities said."

    1. As a pro gun advocate maybe you should start a blog highlighting these "good" uses of guns. I have heard the gun loons say there are 100's of thousands of these incidents, yet, I rarely read about them.

    2. "I rarely read about them." because you are probably reading a heavily biased paper,blog,magazine ect.

    3. "I have heard the gun loons say there are 100's of thousands of these incidents, yet, I rarely read about them. "

      Allow me to be of assistance to you Fred. Anything I could put together would pale in comparison to those who are already doing yeoman's work on the very subject you mention.

      In fact, there is a very interesting article on what seems to be a defensive gun use against law enforcement as a result of SWATing,

      Another good one is one I've mentioned on Mike's blog before,

      This is an all around site which provides links to firearms related articles both pro and con,

    4. Thanks for your typical insulting, low intellect gun loon response George.
      So SS, how many of these incidents occur every year would you say?

    5. Sure, the resources are out there, but they add up to a few hundred or a thousand or so per year, many of which are questionable.

    6. Quantifying this number is difficult since not all defensive gun uses are reported to law enforcement. The President recently ordered a study to be made on gun violence to be made, and it said this,

      "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). "

      And the study admits to a wide variation. Of course, the argument could be made that being able to defend yourself against assault shouldn't be subject to restrictions based on how often other people have used it.

    7. "Thanks for your typical insulting, low intellect gun loon response George.
      So SS, how many of these incidents occur every year would you say?" .....Fred please tell me how my comment was insulting to you and also explain how it was of low intelligence....All I suggested was that the publications you read on a regular basis are probably of like mind with yourself as are most things most people tend to read on a regular basis.....your being insulted by such a thing is irrational please speak with a professional about your issues if you or your family believe you are in need of such help...Good luck Fred

    8. So we don't know.
      I couldn't find a number either.

    9. George, since you insult people (strangers) on a regular basis, it's you who needs the help.

    10. "And the study admits to a wide variation. Of course, the argument could be made that being able to defend yourself against assault shouldn't be subject to restrictions based on how often other people have used it."

      Now you sound like Kurt. Please don't go all the way there.

      Did you see this from the Kleck post I made today:

      "Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal."

      I've been saying that all along. I didn't know Kleck himself had admitted it. And it goes a long way to supporting my position that guns do far more harm than good.

    11. "Now you sound like Kurt. Please don't go all the way there."

      *grin* Since I think I'm likely a bit older than Kurt, what make you think I didn't beat him to "there"?
      We already have documented evidence from numerous states that citizens who make the decision to carry a firearm for self defense. And even with all of that data, pro gun control advocates still use the same dire predictions whenever a state adopts a shall issue permit system. It happened in Minnesota in '03 and it happened more recently in Illinois. And as happened in all of those states, those predictions didn't have any resemblance to real life.
      Currently, its up to the states to determine what their gun laws are subject to limitations of either State or Federal Constitutions. And gun laws, like other individual freedoms are expanding in most states. And violent crime continues to decline.
      Perhaps we should take discussing the Kleck study to that posting to keep things on topic.

    12. As someone said before, we can count the number of dead from gun shot with certainty. Any number of defensive gun uses, is just a guess.

    13. Quite right, SSG--I would never presume to take credit for originating the position that Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights cannot legitimately be held hostage to the requirement for a favorable statistical outcome.

      The most eloquently I have seen that position articulated is by Jeff Snyder, in a book published in 2001, compiled from essays he had written well before then:

      For the sake of discussion, let's assume that keeping and bearing arms suitable for self-defense is a bona fide individual right. If so, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder others with firearms, while one man alone uses a firearm to save a life, provides no basis for curbing the individual liberty to own and bear arms. Each individual must, because of his inherent, autonomous ethical freedom, be respected as an end in himself; no prior restraint may be imposed upon his right to own and bear firearms.

      Actually we can go further. Under an individual right view, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder innocents with firearms, and no one uses a firearm to protect himself or others provides no basis for a prior restraint. Individuals must still be possessed of a right to own firearms because their ethical freedom contains the potentiality of using firearms for good. That is, people can use this tool for good, if they turn to it with a good will.

      And this:

      Take, for example, gun prohibition as a means of eliminating gun crime, on the assumption that the evidence is clear that if gun crime can be eliminated more people's lives will be saved than lost (the avowed greatest good assumed to be the preservation of the greatest number of lives). All are deprived of arms to eliminate the harm caused by those who would otherwise abuse their freedoms by using firearms to commit crimes. Let's assume this law works, that is, in fact achieves its goal of eliminating all gun crime, and thereby maximizes lives saved.

      It is evident from this example, first, that the individual's liberty to own firearms depends on whether sufficient others are using them to produce desired results. In this case, we have posited that they have not, that is, that more people are dying from gun crimes than are being saved by persons defending themselves with guns. The utilitarian "solution" to maximize aggregate welfare is thus to deprive all individuals of the liberty to own firearms. The scope of an individual's freedom, then, is not a function of the respect due him as an independent agent having free will, and does not depend on his own conduct, but is instead a function of how his fellow citizens behave and the results they achieve.

      Second, the individual's private good is not merely subordinate to realization of the aggregate greatest good, but is freely sacrificed to securing that greatest good. The obverse of the fact that more lives are saved by gun prohibition is that some, having been deprived of an effective tool of self-defense, will of necessity lose their lives, so that others, admittedly more numerous, will live.

      In short, some are sacrificed so that others, comprising a greater number, may live.

      Utilitarianism sanctions human sacrifice, both great and small, as long as it is for "the greatest good of the greatest number." Utilitarianism justifies using some people as cannon fodder merely as a means to the fulfillment of others' ends-- so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous.

    14. ss, Are you really "there?" Kurt's position is that his gun rights are so valuable to him that if it meant 100,000 or even a million people died every year from gun violence and only one life was saved by a DGU it would be worth it. I can't believe you're really that extreme.

    15. I can't believe you're really that extreme.

      Nothing "extreme" about it, unless you refer to my "extreme" awareness that my rights are utterly independent of the actions of others.

    16. So we follow the laws even if they are responsible for killing of our people? That's all you got? Laws shouldn't be changed to save millions of lives? What is law supposed to be for, then?

    17. A law only provides for punishment to those that break them. A law in and of itself will not prevent those that wish to kill for their criminal reasons.

      Murder is against the law but the law hasn't stopped any murder. The law provides for punishment of the murderer.

      Capitol punishment was meant for two things, to rid society of killer and to provide a deterrent for murder. But now PC has only caused a brutal killer to simply go to sleep. Its no longer a deterrent, neither is life in prison. So murders still happen despite a law against it.

      You can write 200 more laws against murder Fred, they still wont prevent a single one.

      I used murder against the law as only a single example of tens of thousands (or more) laws on the books.

    18. A law against something gives the State the right to prosecute someone. Punishment is left to judges and juries. How do you know a law has not stopped someone from committing that crime? If there were no laws, there would be more nefarious acts. I can't believe you think if we had no laws, it would make no difference in crime rates.

    19. Where in the world did I say anything like that?? Where do you find that I said I believed we didn't need any laws, Fred? I only explained what a law does and doesn't do. It only provides punishment but doesn't prevent anything.

      A law is only followed by the law abiding, it's ignored by the criminal. And since there are those that are willing to ignore the law, the law provides punishment, not prevention.

      The law has not prevented one damn thing. You can't prove it does. There is solid proof that it doesn't.

      It's the person that makes the difference. A good person doesn't need any law to know what's a good thing to do and what's not. A good person does the right thing because he or she knows it's the right thing to do. A bad person doesn't care about anyone else or him or herself.

      I am not talking about speed limits that get broken everyday. I am talking about the human condition.

      Are you saying that you would walk over and strangle your neighbor for some little thing you didn't like if there wasn't a law that says you cant? Or would you NOT take such action just because you know it would be the wrong thing to do despite any law on the books about it.

      Come on Fred, you seem smarter than this, don't go around looking like an idiot. You know very well that what is written on paper won't stop anyone bent on doing wrong. The only thing that paper does is provide punishment when found responsible for their acts by jury of his peers and the severity of the punishment laid out by the judge in accordance of that law, on paper.

    20. 'Murder is against the law but the law hasn't stopped any murder."

      Tell me how this statement by you doesn't mean you are saying laws do not work? Seems yours is the idiotic statement.

    21. If I believed laws don't work, I would have said as much. I did not. Do you not know how to comprehend what you read?

      Any law will only work as a deterrent IF the punishment is great enough.

      Only an idiot can't see why the state's are expanding gun laws for the purpose of individual protection. It's because laws don't work to stop those that don't care about the laws and are more than willing to break them. The deterrents are just not great enough to stop everyone that doesn't care about the law, himself, you or me.

      Don't be so stupid to add meanings to my statements that are not there, that makes you the one that sounds idiotic.

    22. Those are your words, I quoted you. Yes you are quite an idiot that you can't express a clear idea, but that's normal for you gun loons.

    23. Yes Fred, those are my words and my words never said we didn't need laws. Those are your words.

      These are also your words,,,

      "As someone said before, we can count the number of dead from gun shot with certainty. Any number of defensive gun uses, is just a guess. "

      You can in no way show how many are saved by laws, but the evidence is clear by the numbers that can be counted that the laws don't save.

      " Laws shouldn't be changed to save millions of lives? "

      Change them, why? Are you saying that the current laws don't work? That seems to be your clear idea! The only reason we would change them is that they don't work. And then change the changed law when that change doesn't work and again and again with the same result.

      What is real clear to me is that you anti loons cant comprehend that you can never write a law to control morality, you cant legislate morality. But your quite the idiot or totally uneducated to be able to grasp the crystal clear evidence that morality is the person, not some writing on a sheet of paper called a law. But that's normal for you anti loons.

      That's OK tho, go ahead and surround yourself with all the latest laws so you can live your life in a continual delusion that you think all that paper will make you safe. Maybe you wont have a rude awakening.

      My reasoning is crystal clear because the evidence is crystal clear, but either you don't have reading comprehension or just cant stand to take off those rose colored glasses so you can read at all.

      Good luck with your delusion. Hope it works for you.

    24. Typical gun loon denying his own words, get help Gunny loon.

    25. Deny my own words, what a joke. You got nothing. As I said, enjoy your delusions.

    26. "Murder is against the law but the law hasn't stopped any murder."

      I disagree. If murder were not against the law, don't you think we'd have more if it? Aren't some potential murderers dissuaded by the possible punishment? Of course they are. Same goes with any other law.

    27. Gun control laws aren't trying to legislate morality, but safety, which most laws are for. Answer Mike's question, deluded one.

    28. Ok, I will Fred the delusional one. No Mike, I don't think so. Simply put, again, only the honest and god fearing don't commit murder. A law doesn't bind a person from committing criminal act but punishes them instead.

      Oh and Fred, we were not talking about gun control, but murder instead. Nice try at a deflection but no soap.

    29. Oh and Mike, if the punishment were strong enough it might, just maybe dissuade some but not all. Life in prison means 15 years to get out and go at it again. Life without parole makes for a good teacher inside for those that will get out to commit more successful crimes. Death penalty is no longer a deterrent as it has to be "humane" now so your perp just goes to sleep, that's a deterrent? No, that's a joke. Murderers didn't treat their victims humanely now did they? No. Hung by the neck until dead, firing squad, drawn and quartered, now THAT'S a deterrent. Publicize the execution with the charge and examples of his victims demise. It worked in the old days as a deterrent, it could still work now. But no, we have grown into a touchy-feely society instead and the criminal still uses his old bag of tricks only more boldly now.

      Laws do not protect. Laws do not prevent. Laws only punish. The punishment only works if it's effective. Effective punishment is a deterrent. Ineffective deterrents are not punishments. Laws that do not punish do not protect or prevent crime.

      Mean circle isn't it. There are endless ways to say the same thing. Almost all gets it. But I doubt that you or Fred ever will.

    30. 'Murder is against the law but the law hasn't stopped any murder."

      Just repeating your garbage again. On with your delusion.

    31. My delusion Fred? Listen to yourself.

      1 Murder is against the law, Right?

      2 Does murder still occur? Yes or no question.

      3 If the answer is no then you can say the law against murder works.

      4 If the answer is yes then you cant say the law against murder works.

      Ask yourself this question Fred, then ask yourself who is REALLY delusional if you think the law works.

    32. Gunny has to have that last lying word. Sounds like GC.

    33. Lying word? Where? You won't even answer the question. Answer the question and we will see who is lying. You sound like Laci. GC doesn't live in Texas, I do.

      Typical anti loon. Accuse and insult but can't answer a question. You demanded I answer Mike, I did. You answer mine now.

    34. I answered your question, it's not my fault you are to stupid to comprehend. Is this your life gun loon? Making nonsense arguments to hear yourself? No wonder this site calls gun loons liars, you are a perfect example.

    35. Gunsmoke, what about the seat belt law. That's about safety, the sanctions are fairly minor, yet the obedience to it is extremely high. When I was a kid they came out with commercials about using seat belts and almost no one did. After the law, and more and more public information drives, almost everyone does.

      If murder were not against the law followed by severe sanctions - it's ridiculous that you call 15 years in prison and the lethal infection no deterrent at all - there would be far more of it. What would prevent simple confrontations from turning lethal in many cases. Think about it, no arrest, no punishment, no downside except a guilty conscience. I ask you again, do you really think there would be no increase in murders at all if it were not against the law?

    36. Fred, you have NEVER answered the question. Its a YES or NO question. You have deflected (just like now) and tried flinging insults (no soap) but you have not answered the question.

      Thanks for your typical insulting, low intellect anti-gun loon response Fred. (a quote borrowed from you, just turned it around)

      Stop embarrassing yourself and answer it. YES or NO. Its not that hard.

      Mike I will answer you again, NO.

      Severe sanctions?? No, again your sanctions are a JOKE. That's J.O.K.E.
      Lethal "infections" That may make a better deterrent than a lethal injection.

      Seatbelt law doesn't even compare to murder. Nice try at a deflection but no soap. Apples and oranges. Try to stay on subject, murder.

      Once again. I NEVER said we didn't need the laws, that was Fred and you. I said they don't work and explained why. So I am going to ask you the same exact thing I asked Fred and never got an answer. Please try to answer this Mike and again, its a simple yes or no.

      1 Murder is against the law, Right?

      2 Does murder still occur? Yes or no question.

      3 If the answer is no then you can say the law against murder works.

      4 If the answer is yes then you cant say the law against murder works.

      I don't care if you answer yes or no, just give a yes or no answer, Mike. Same for you Fred. No deflections, no excuses, no elaborations. Just the simple one word answer.

    37. You're lying when you say no, that "there would be no increase in murders at all if it were not against the law?"

      I don't think anyone with the least amount of honesty would say that. A similarly, no one who's the least honest would say that because murders still occur the murder laws don't work.

      You are the extremest of fanatics. You lie, you twist and you never give in an inch. Congratulations.

  2. "A Rare Legitimate DGU" More mendacious headlines from Mike?....No he does not do that...

  3. I answered your question Gunny loon, not my fault you can't read English. On to you next lie.......

    1. Lets see, I re-read this entire thread. Nope, no YES or NO answer from you either. So you lied again, Fred. That's the problem with you anti-loon fanatics, you cant tell the truth. So on to your next lie yourself since you are in the dishonest camp. You and Mike both cant answer the simple question without some long and twisted dissertation and evading the question.

      ITS A YES OR NO QUESTION YOU IDIOTS! Answer it YES OR NO! Its not a gotcha moment Mike. Answer it first, discuss AFTER the answer. You may learn something. Maybe not since Mike NEVER gives an inch.

    2. You have proven over and over again you are an insulting, idiot, jackass who cannot comprehend simple English, so it's no surprise you keep making yourself look like an insulting, jackass, fool.

    3. You brought the insults first, you braying jackass, you bring them you get them back. I comprehend simple English just fine. You however are not educated enough to even answer a simple YES or NO question.

      Prove you have an education past the second grade. Answer the YES or NO question. Prove you have comprehension past the second grade reading level.

      Or just keep proving your nothing but a insulting braying jackass that lives to continually lie instead. Come on you lying fool insult me again, I could care less. Show the world you cant answer a YES or NO question. Show the world your only education is a class in insults. Come on fool, show it. Keep proving my point why your kind ALWAYS FAILS.

      Come on, do it! Insult me instead of answering. Do it! Prove me right again. Do it.

    4. No asshole, you started the insults weeks ago when I came on this blog. I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself with those insults and your lack of intelligence. Thank you.
      I thought you told Mike you were not coming back to this blog? I know just another one of your lies.