Gun Store Owner and Son Die in Shootout

over $25 service charge.

www.sunherald.com/news/local/crime/article56305535.html

That'll teach them, I 'spect. Don't try chargin' me if you ain't gonna fix MY gun, dadgummit.

 

unless there is a camera, or someone talks without a lawyer, I doubt the truth of who shot first will ever be known

.

 

This incident proves that any law abiding citizen can start shooting and killing someone with a gun.

 

Doesn't matter, does it? Two dead guys including a 17-year old is what matters.

 

Tempers flare. When they do, everybody is better off when the guns are out of reach.

 

well if one of the survivors started it, then it matters

 

I suppose it matters legally, but just think of the enormous stupidity of it all.

 

I think with that we can all agree......

 

I don't think that has ever been denied. Everyone is law abiding....until their not.

I thought that was clearly understood with most people.

 

People are born with the right to protect themselves and the constitution clarifies that to be with a gun if needed.

Being born doesn't mean you have a brain inside your head though.

 

I usually do not respond to you, but this statement made me say wow.

 

It would not make any sense for the store owners to have shot first.

 

I nominate the father and son for the Darwin award. Anybody second the motion?

 

Can you be more specific since it involved 2 fathers and 2 sons?

 

in this instance doesn't make sense for anyone to shoot first period

.

 

You needed proof of that?

 

all of them

 

Agree- it would take a fool to argue with that statement.

 

So two idiots break the law (maybe deserving) and two law abiding people defend themselves and you want to give it to both!

So in your opinion the two law abiding people in this story should have just stood there and took it like good sheep?

- - - Updated - - -

Usually doesn't, but there are way to many criminals dead or in jail because they did.

 

I would bet that the store owners were DEAD ON RIGHT.
Sadly they argued with one or two people with the brain of a lizard.

The owners could have given up the $25 even if that was the wrong thing to do.

So the two who were DEAD ON RIGHT are now SHOT RIGHT DEAD, but they died being DEAD RIGHT.

 

Note that "the wife of the owner did not have a gun"

And she was the only one who didn't get shot.

If this altercation had happened without guns, all we would have is a few broken noses and egos hurt. With guns, we have two dead and two wounded people.

So, logically, this means that the guns contributed to the escalation of a situation, making it deadly when it didn't need to be.

 

You speak the truth, but that decision was up to the store owner on what he would take. I'm not agreeing with his decision, but everyone has a line of right and wrong and where they will defend it that they must come to terms with in their life. Some people feel a relatively small wrong like this warrants this kind of action, some people will let you steal from them, rape them, and still not want to defend themselves or others.

 

considering that no one knows who fired first and that both groups had a right to defend themselves under state law, no one can tell who broke what law or if any law was broken.

But the reason why I gave the Darwin award is that both sets of father and son did not have the brains to think first before they started firing.

this is about as bad as a person killing another person because that person scuffed your Air Jordan shoes.

 

Again it would seem to be a correct statement, but like has been mentioned more times that I can or want to count.....you can't keep guns from criminals and......all people are law abiding until they are not.

 

I agree with your point. However, this has actually not much to do with actual thinking. The issue is that when someone has a gun, a minor difference of opinion can quickly morph into a life-or-death situation and instincts take over. Both parties probably thought they were just defending themselves. Yet, without guns they would all be still alive.