Yet Another Armed Robery in Grove City - Merchant Buys Gun Afterwards; NEW: Editorial

[ByAnyMeans]

Originally Posted by Helter

I agree with everything the DA said.

Yeah, if the robberies are happening when the owner isn't in the store, then the owner having a gun isn't going to help the employees. That's not rocket science guys.
And yeah, people who have guns for self defense need to get training. We tell people that all the time.

and yes, there is a certain amount of loss that is going to be involved with any type of business. Whether that is for nonpayment, breakage, theft... That's just something that has to be accepted. You can minimize it, but you'll never be able to completely eliminate it. Buying a gun that you hate and won't practice with, to prevent a robbery that happens when you're not around, really isn't a rational action to limit that.

While the store owner was not present for the second robbery it does not say he was not there for the first and nobody has anyway of being certain he will not be there if their is a third.

It also does not go into detail. This may be the motivating factor that convinced him to allow his employees to carry which may make them safer. To think he is going to exercise his right while denying others the same opportunity is an assumption I would not make.

The other assumption you make is that he will not practice with the gun. He did say he was going back to shoot it where he bought it. He may realize he needs to continue his training regardless of his preferences or even better he can come to realize he does like guns. This is what happenned to my fiance and you can't keep her out of the range. Again it is an assumption I would not be comfortable making.

I also don't understand, if you must accept a certain amount of loss then why bother with any of the upgrades suggested. If one is pointless then would'nt they all be pointless. It reminds me of people I work with who think i'm crazy because I carry a gun but they carry many different self defense items when on the subway. If you see a need for self defense why limit your options. I feel that applies here as well. If their is a need for high levels of security, cameras, insurance and dye packs why not a firearm. I agree that if you don't learn to use the tool it's pointless but they never say he will not learn and train with it nor if he will limit his employees ability to learn and train with a firearm.

[General Geoff]

If a store clerk goes for a weapon while being robbed, the criminal may feel he is forced to shoot. And if the clerk pulls a gun and shoots the robber — who turns out not to be armed — then the court system comes into play. Was the shooting necessary?

Don't go visiting the intentions of a criminal. To do so is to gamble with your life.

[ByAnyMeans]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

Don't go visiting the intentions of a criminal. To do so is to gamble with your life.

+1000000000

[XD40coyote]

This isn’t the Wild West and shootouts are not a good idea. Even in home robberies, many of the injuries or deaths occur if the home owner goes for a gun.

No, this is the Wild East, much worst than the old Wild West ever was. In home robberies it tends to be the CRIMINALS who get the injuries or death when the homeowner goes for a gun.

durrrrrrr...

[Helter]

Originally Posted by ByAnyMeans

While the store owner was not present for the second robbery it does not say he was not there for the first and nobody has anyway of being certain he will not be there if their is a third.

The DA said that most robberies happen when th owner is not on the premises. Since he's the guy who prosecutes those crimes, I'm willing to take his word on that.

The other assumption you make is that he will not practice with the gun. He did say he was going back to shoot it where he bought it. He may realize he needs to continue his training regardless of his preferences or even better he can come to realize he does like guns. This is what happenned to my fiance and you can't keep her out of the range. Again it is an assumption I would not be comfortable making.

It's not an assumption I'm making at all. The DA said the guy needs to get training, that was one of the items that people singled out as "bad". If he gets training, great. If he doesn't, then having a gun isn't going to do much good for him, which is kinda the point of the entire thing.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by Helter

It's not an assumption I'm making at all. The DA said the guy needs to get training, that was one of the items that people singled out as "bad". If he gets training, great. If he doesn't, then having a gun isn't going to do much good for him, which is kinda the point of the entire thing.

The problem is that to many (like me) the underlying message is that an otherwise justified shooting may cause the guy some legal trouble if he hasn't received whatever amount of training/practice the DA feels is appropriate.

The circumstances dictate whether or not a shooting is justified. If the legal requirements are met, it doesn't matter if the person who lawfully defended themselves just got back from the gun shop 5 minutes ago and fired his first shots ever into his attacker.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

The problem is that to many (like me) the underlying message is that an otherwise justified shooting may cause the guy some legal trouble if he hasn't received whatever amount of training/practice the DA feels is appropriate.

The circumstances dictate whether or not a shooting is justified. If the legal requirements are met, it doesn't matter if the person who lawfully defended themselves just got back from the gun shop 5 minutes ago and fired his first shots ever into his attacker.

I agree 100% here.^^^^^^^^^^

I would love to get more training, however, the funds are not available.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by Helter

The DA said that most robberies happen when th owner is not on the premises. Since he's the guy who prosecutes those crimes, I'm willing to take his word on that.


It's not an assumption I'm making at all. The DA said the guy needs to get training, that was one of the items that people singled out as "bad". If he gets training, great. If he doesn't, then having a gun isn't going to do much good for him, which is kinda the point of the entire thing.

You are reading way too much into this DA. You are giving him about 98% too much credit into his abilities and motives.

Also, what part of the US or PA Constitutions demands training? Especially to satisfy the local DA?

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing about the benefit of training, but you are skipping over the major part of the whole story - giving MAJOR KUDOS to the shop owner because he no longer wants to be a victim. Shame on the DA for trying to quash that.

[ByAnyMeans]

Originally Posted by Helter

The DA said that most robberies happen when th owner is not on the premises. Since he's the guy who prosecutes those crimes, I'm willing to take his word on that.


It's not an assumption I'm making at all. The DA said the guy needs to get training, that was one of the items that people singled out as "bad". If he gets training, great. If he doesn't, then having a gun isn't going to do much good for him, which is kinda the point of the entire thing.

I could care less what the DA says about "most robberies" just like "most" people won't face a life or death situation on any given day. I still choose to carry a firearm. You cannot assure that shop owner that he will not be there if that third possible robbery occurs.

And both you and the DA assumed he would not seek training because of his prior held hatred for guns. That doesn't mean if he gets it great if not bad. You said it will not play a part in stopping a robbery because he "wouldn't" get training and you simply cannot know that. The story also did not say that the shop owner informed the DA that he was not going to seek training, I know I don't keep my local DA updated on my currently scheduled training classes or lack thereof.

[GunLawyer001]

I'm deeply opposed to people reacting to robberies or assaults by running out and buying a gun.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They should have bought a gun years ago, and proactively gotten some training in tactics and the law.

A gun isn't like a fire extinguisher, something that you just have around and when you need it, you point it at the problem and pull the trigger. You need practice, there's no time for trial & error and figuring out which way is OFF for the safety, why it won't fire after you insert a magazine, how much it kicks and how loud it is. If you're surprised while you're defending yourself, that's almost always a bad thing.