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

[Yellowfin]

Looks like one Mercer DA needs to have some voters give him some hell about his statements.

[Helter]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

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.

Did you read the same thing that I did? Really, did you? The DA wasn't trying to prevent him from being able to buy a gun, and wasn't saying that any of those items were required for him to get one. He was saying that buying a gun wasn't necessarily the best response to the problem. Guess what, it's not. If the guy wants a gun for self defense, that's great. he should get one, hell, he should get 10. He shouldn't get it to prevent robberies that are happening to other people though, that's just stupid. If your house catches on fire, getting a handgun is not a reasonable response, nor is it a preventative measure against a repeat. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying not to buy a gun.
Trying to quash that? How did he do that? He said specifically that he thought people should have guns for personal defense. But how exactly does the shop owner having a gun help the employees who are getting robbed? It doesn't, which is what he said. How does having a gun help the owner if he doesn't get training with it? It doesn't, which is what the DA said.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by Helter

Did you read the same thing that I did? Really, did you?

No need to get snarky. Yes, of course I read the article, many times. I also know the DA personally. I'm not sure you can make that claim.

Originally Posted by Helter

The DA wasn't trying to prevent him from being able to buy a gun

True

and wasn't saying that any of those items were required for him to get one.

No, but he carries the weight of the District Attorney - not to be taken lightly

He was saying that buying a gun wasn't necessarily the best response to the problem.

He called it a "panic" purchase. Why do you think he would use that word?

Guess what, it's not.

I disagree. At the very least, the article now puts criminals on notice that shop owners are arming themselves.

If the guy wants a gun for self defense, that's great. he should get one, hell, he should get 10. He shouldn't get it to prevent robberies that are happening to other people though, that's just stupid.

As was said before in the thread, no one knows when the owner is there - or if he is training his employees, or if they carry. And the article doesn't say if he was at the first robbery or not. You are assuming he wasn't.

If your house catches on fire, getting a handgun is not a reasonable response, nor is it a preventative measure against a repeat. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as saying not to buy a gun.

Quite a silly comparison. It is absolutely a preventative measure because now criminals in the area know that a gun MAY be on the premises.

Trying to quash that? How did he do that? He said specifically that he thought people should have guns for personal defense.

Already answered above - calling it a "panic" purchase and saying it with the weight of the DA, who has nearly absolute power to prosecute you and/or the criminal.

But how exactly does the shop owner having a gun help the employees who are getting robbed?

According to the DA, get cameras and accept that you will get robbed. Great option for you? Would you prefer this option to protect your spouse or children? "Sorry that you've been raped twice, honey. Tell you what...I'm going to buy cameras so the next time it happens, we can see who did it. By the way...accept that since you are a woman, you're gonna get raped, anyway." GREAT option, there.

I want criminals to fear that there may be weapons inside. I want them to fear that there may be more than one person inside who knows how to use the weapons. Ultimately, it's my business to be armed or not, to train or not, to train others or not. It isn't the job of you or the DA to tell me how to run my house or business. It's definitely not your job to determine if it's "stupid."

It doesn't, which is what he said. How does having a gun help the owner if he doesn't get training with it? It doesn't, which is what the DA said.

I strongly disagree. As said in the thread before, if a shop owner buys a gun that morning and a robber comes in that afternoon - and the robber gets shot - are you seriously siding with the robber and the DA? Or will you change your current position and side with the "untrained" shop owner? I'm siding with the shop owner, just like everyone else in the thread.

Besides (as I've said before), who are you or the DA to decide how much training someone should have? One day at the range? One training class? A week of training? An NRA-approved course? Combat training? Classroom training? Live-fire training?

Please be specific. There are 20,000 forum users who might be doing it all wrong according to your standards.

[nlcrsn]

He is from Palestine and didn't like guns? Hope he learns to enjoy them and never actually needs it! At the same time I hope if he does need it, he is trained and prepared mentally.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

No need to get snarky. Yes, of course I read the article, many times. I also know the DA personally. I'm not sure you can make that claim.




True



No, but he carries the weight of the District Attorney - not to be taken lightly



He called it a "panic" purchase. Why do you think he would use that word?



I disagree. At the very least, the article now puts criminals on notice that shop owners are arming themselves.



As was said before in the thread, no one knows when the owner is there - or if he is training his employees, or if they carry. And the article doesn't say if he was at the first robbery or not. You are assuming he wasn't.



Quite a silly comparison. It is absolutely a preventative measure because now criminals in the area know that a gun MAY be on the premises.



Already answered above - calling it a "panic" purchase and saying it with the weight of the DA, who has nearly absolute power to prosecute you and/or the criminal.



According to the DA, get cameras and accept that you will get robbed. Great option for you? Would you prefer this option to protect your spouse or children? "Sorry that you've been raped twice, honey. Tell you what...I'm going to buy cameras so the next time it happens, we can see who did it. By the way...accept that since you are a woman, you're gonna get raped, anyway." GREAT option, there.

I want criminals to fear that there may be weapons inside. I want them to fear that there may be more than one person inside who knows how to use the weapons. Ultimately, it's my business to be armed or not, to train or not, to train others or not. It isn't the job of you or the DA to tell me how to run my house or business. It's definitely not your job to determine if it's "stupid."



I strongly disagree. As said in the thread before, if a shop owner buys a gun that morning and a robber comes in that afternoon - and the robber gets shot - are you seriously siding with the robber and the DA? Or will you change your current position and side with the "untrained" shop owner? I'm siding with the shop owner, just like everyone else in the thread.

Besides (as I've said before), who are you or the DA to decide how much training someone should have? One day at the range? One training class? A week of training? An NRA-approved course? Combat training? Classroom training? Live-fire training?

Please be specific. There are 20,000 forum users who might be doing it all wrong according to your standards.

This is why it was good that the "National Reciprocity Act" failed.
It would have led to just this sort of thing.

[Helter]

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 don't see that being suggested at all. The fact that he didn't mention any of the potential legal ramifications of a shooting suggests to me that he may have been trying very carefully to avoid that implication in fact. I don't think I've *ever* talked to a lawyer about guns/self defense without them bringing up the threat of prosecution, even if the gun is used for legitimate self defense. Since he didn't either it didn't occur to him, or he didn't want to say anything along those lines (or, I suppose, he did say something to that effect, and the paper left it out, I see that as a fairly unlikely option though).

[reverserboy]

Since he's the guy who prosecutes those crimes, I'm willing to take his word on that.

I'm not big on taking the word of any elected/gov/public official.....ect.
It's nice to see someone trusts the gov.
I sure don't.

Maybe I'm reading too much into things...but what I get is:
This DA is anti self defense but feels he can't come out & say so.

How many antis have we heard start off with "I support the 2nd adm BUT....." blah blah blah?? To me it sounds like the same BS,just different wording.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by reverserboy

I'm not big on taking the word of any elected/gov/public official....

Well, this elected official stopped at the store tonight because the owner was finally in when I was going by.

I talked with the owner, gave him a flyer, and pointed him toward PAFOA and PA Open Carry. He doesn't have his LCTF yet, but I informed him on the benefits. He isn't interested in carrying it on his person (yet), but he wasn't aware of the transport laws. He is now.

He is just getting into firearms. He picked up a Sigma 9mm. I recommended that he should get a good holster to keep it in, even if it's just sitting behind the counter. I told him that if someone grabs it, they might just grab the trigger...and problems would ensue. His employees are still shaken over the robbery, so they are naturally shaky around any gun. Perhaps they will come around to at least have some basic training/range time.

He was really friendly and interested in the flyer (kudos, Rich and others!). He was heading over to Elite Firearms soon to get some range time in. I told him to sign on to this site since there's always info about group shoots and such...

Perhaps I can set up a shoot in this area (if the fine folks at Elite would let us use their private range again!) and invite the guy...and any Poofa folks, too!



Just remember, folks...support your local store owners who support 2A (and are gun owners themselves)!