As a young Upper St. Clair man is alleged to have killed someone with whom he was involved in a minor dispute which reached a climax at the Washington Shop ‘n Save, a store I have patronized many times, multiple lives have been shattered.
First and foremost, a husband and father of five has been taken from his family, surely leaving those who cared for him in shock, wondering how something like this could have happened at a busy supermarket in mid-afternoon. The gunman and his family will endure a lengthy horror that began when he fired the fateful shot. Shattered for many is the sense of security that one would like to feel and is entitled to feel, particularly at a place like this crime scene, a location at which families with children were certainly present.
The National Rifle Association would tell us that guns save lives and that we dare not interfere with the most expansive view of the Second Amendment imaginable. We have no right to insist that those who wish to own lethal weapons undergo training in their use nor may we insist that the gun owner be tested to ensure that he or she is psychologically sound. We must not inflict any inconvenience or delay upon the gun owner nor do we have the right to limit the number of guns one may purchase.
I imagine the NRA will be conspicuous in its silence as another life has been senselessly snuffed out by someone with a gun.
To those that are pro-gun and consider my thoughts to be liberal clap-trap, I would ask the following, do you think that in retrospect, and as he spends many years in confinement, that the gunman is glad he brought a firearm with him to settle disputes on this fateful day?
I make no excuses for the victim if he was the aggressor and assaulted the gunman before the shooting, but the decedent would likely be alive today had it not been so easy for his assailant to have killed him. Was the killing worth it?
Every taking of a human life is a homicide. Whether or not the taking of that life was justified or a criminal act is a matter for the District Attorney and the courts. Tragically, one man is dead. On the other hand, 110 million gun owners had a fairly uneventful day. Your assumption that the person who used lethal force is the aggressor is presumptuous, at the very least. Even more to your point, we all have a right to defend ourselves, using the level of force necessary to stop a violent encounter. Whether we use a firearm is a matter of personal choice, AND lethal force must be justified. So far as training is concerned, Article I, Section XXI of the Pennsylvania Constitution clearly states, in one sentence, that "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." It does not provide for "settling disputes", as you correctly point out. Duels have been outlawed for quite some time. And oh, by the way, don't give so much credit to the NRA. Their initials mean Not Relevant Anymore, and they have become nothing but a fear machine that attempts to have folks empty their wallets for the NRA Wine Club, Cancer Insurance, and a host of other non firearm related programs. I'm as pro-gun as it gets, and I'll be blogging my Voters Guide in about a week. You'll see it doesn't mirror the NRA. I'm a gun owner who is capable of independent thought.
I don't own a gun but I have no problem with those who do legally. People have children daily and have little or no training in parenting. Should we stop them from becoming parents? This is a tragic event but the gun is not the problem nor is the lack of required training. Common sense is where the failure is in this case.
I would correct one assertion in your note. I did not state that the shooter of the bullet was the aggressor; in fact I stated at the beginning of the last paragraph that the individual that was killed is not a sympathetic figure if he was the aggressor, as appears to have been the case. The question is whether the shooter had the right to take the life of someone who punched him. I believe you and I would agree that he did not. I would note that on Tuesday's Marty Griffin Show, noted Defense Attorney William Diffenderfer, who ought to know, said that "there are no good gun stories", meaning that stories like the Shop 'n Save horror are the norm, someone dying for nothing because of their easy access to a gun. Thank you for the civil debate, as always, and for having the courage to identify yourself as you state your views.
You make an extraordinarily important point when you speak to the "aggressor" in this tragic tale. Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine applies to all of us when we are anywhere we may lawfully be. Unfortunately, some folks, unlike you and I, actually believe the law reads "shoot first and ask questions later". The shooter in this case is in dire straights, charged with murder and locked away in the Washington County Jail. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the decedent was the aggressor. Castle Doctrine is clear. You must see a weapon before employing lethal force. Even disparity of force, i.e. 2 or more assailants, a physically superior assailant, is not addressed in Castle. Castle, in short, states you may defend yourself, but you are limited to only such force as is necessary to do so. A 30 year old man is punched by a 55 year old man. All things being considered equal, and absent a weapon, the 30 year old could have responded by breaking the 55 year old's nose with a well placed punch, stopping the aggression. Perhaps repeated punches would have been required. Lethal force to stop a one-on-one encounter where a punch was thrown likely won't stand as justified, and Castle won't be an affirmative defense. You noted that "Defense Attorney William Diffenderfer, who ought to know, said that "there are no good gun stories". Actually there are, but they are rarely published. Google "The Armed Citizen" for a sampling of good gun stories.
Just because I don't use my last name doesn't invalidate my opinion or comments. Please discontinue the cheap shots.