NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Roper on August 14, 2009, 09:37:19 PM
-
Check out this story...
www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/firearms66c
You have to be ready and willing!
-
Interesting story. I applaud the old guy. Don't know if he was good, or just lucky, to have hit all four with three shots and not his employees. Either way, it was an appropriate and justified result. I don't see a big problem with the New York Times story, though. Yes, they described the anguish of the friends and family, but I don't see that they necessarily or purposely put a negative light on the store owner. I don't know what the laws are in NYC, and perhaps the Times was full of crap about him needing a permit. Otherwise, I thought it was fairly objective reporting (at least as most newspapers go).
I don't think any of us know for sure what we would do in a self defense situation, but I would like to think I would be able to respond as this shop owner did. I can imagine, in a situation like that, where you might fear for your own life and/or that of friends/family/employees your adrenaline would really be pumping. The hardest thing might be to stop shooting once the danger was past. I know from experience that when someone threatens or attacks you, the immediate response is to do whatever is necessary to defend yourself. For me, that is followed by an intense anger at the person who created the extremely stressful situation. Hopefully, they won't try to prosecute this guy for going beyond what might have been necessary to control the situation. I'm not saying he did, mind you. I'm just saying that if there was only one robber with a gun, and he was the first one shot, they may say he was not justified in shooting the others. Without having been there, no one can say for sure. There is probably no way he could have known if the others had guns or not, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. How much chance does a 72 year old guy have against three young thugs, armed or not?
-
I don't know what the laws are in NYC, and perhaps the Times was full of crap about him needing a permit. Otherwise, I thought it was fairly objective reporting (at least as most newspapers go).
Hopefully, they won't try to prosecute this guy for going beyond what might have been necessary to control the situation. I'm not saying he did, mind you. I'm just saying that if there was only one robber with a gun, and he was the first one shot, they may say he was not justified in shooting the others. Without having been there, no one can say for sure. There is probably no way he could have known if the others had guns or not, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. How much chance does a 72 year old guy have against three young thugs, armed or not?
I believe in NYC, you must have a permit to have any gun. As far as the rest I quoted, the anti gunners have got us conditioned to believe he was not justified in shooting the other three, which is crap. It is one of those things where the criminals have more rights than the person defending himself. Who says hoodie wouldn't come back for some "payback" on the store owner for killing his homie? My money says he faces some retalitation from the brothers for this. Let's hope they don't take his shotgun away.
-
LitlRat:
I agree, once someone decides they are better than the rest of us and can do what they want and take what they want, they are fair game. With the laws and courts the way they are, I wouldn't want that these guys might get a second chance to come after me again. When I was just a kid, I was smaller than most my age. I learned early that some people will try to take advantage of anyone they think they can. I always stood my ground, and most of the time, the bullies would back down simply because I was no longer an easy target. There is no such thing as fighting dirty (unless you're talking about regulated sporting events). To me, actual physical fighting is a last resort. I won't start one, but I'll finish one, however, and with whatever it takes. And, it isn't finished until I'm sure I'm safe from being attacked again by the same person. Fortunately, I've never had to do more than throw a punch or two, or a kick to the crotch, to get anyone to leave me alone, and that only a few times (many years ago).
-
Former NYC resident checking in -
Yes, you need permission from your betters to possess any type of firearm in NYC.
Long guns:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/rifle_licensing_information.shtml
(For the low, low cost of ONLY $234.25!)
Handguns:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/handgun_licensing_information.shtml
(For the low, low cost of ONLY $434.25!)
Not quite ready to puke yet? Check out the FIFTEEN PAGE handgun permit application:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf
"...Shall not be infringed. Void in New York City."
-
So, you have to pay an arm and a leg for a RIGHT? New York City lawmakers can go straight to hell for all I'm concerned. Where is the NRA in all of this? The government tries to charge you outrageous sums of money so you can buy a rifle or handgun. Obviously their goal is to make it only affordable to the rich. This 2nd Amendment infringing ordinance needs to be declared null and void.
-
The NRA probably agrees that these travesty's are "reasonable restrictions"
-
My guess is that the NRA is relatively powerless in NYC politics and realizes that even the judiciary in the area is biased.
-
My guess is that the NRA is relatively powerless in NYC politics and realizes that even the judiciary in the area is biased.
My point was that the NRA is not the unstoppable force some think it is, or they would fight this regardless of the biased judiciary. I see this as capitulation. The NRA is afraid to lose , so it chooses not to fight.
-
Losing in court is pretty serious, as it can set a lasting precedent.
Besides, NRA owns Congress, not the NYC City Council. At least that's what MSNBC tells me. ;)
-
As gun owners, we can't sit back and be afraid to fight, just because we might lose. We need a full scale battle with all the national organizations involved.
The time for passivism is over for gun owners, and those who value liberty.
-
Losing in court is pretty serious, as it can set a lasting precedent.
Same can be said for winning