This is just one reason why personal ownership of handguns is part of the 2nd amendment protection.
The S*** Sheriff’s Office is investigating the shooting death of a man who allegedly attacked another man with a knife. On Tuesday night at 11:00 p.m., a 911 call was received from a female advising the man she was with had just shot a man who attacked him with a knife while seated in their vehicle in the parking lot of X Shopping Center located at ___. When deputies arrived on the scene, within 2 minutes of the call, they found a man suffering from a gunshot wound lying on the ground next to a vehicle that was later determined to be owned by the shooter. Near the body, lying on the pavement was a knife. The shooter in this case was also standing next to the vehicle with weapon in hand when deputies arrived. He immediately surrendered the weapon and was detained being completely cooperative during the investigation. The female who placed the 911 call was a passenger in the car of the shooter. The gunshot wound victim was transported to M Hospital where he was pronounced dead.
Both the individual who shot the man and the female acquaintance told Detectives they were in the car having a conversation when they observed two men walking across the parking lot. One of these men, the deceased, asked for money. His request was declined and he was told to move on. Approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, the couple observed the man again as he surprised them by approaching the driver’s side of the car from the rear in an aggressive manner. He allegedly attacked the driver through the driver’s window and attempted to stab him without provocation. The attacked driver, while attempting to fight his assailant off, was able to retrieve a handgun located in the glove box of the car. He fired the weapon at his attacker who was hit and fell to the ground. He instructed his female companion to call 911 and stepped from the car to see the second man, who did not participate in the attack, flee on foot. The shooter remained on scene for responding Deputies.
The shooter was not seriously injured but did display fresh wounds consistent with a struggle
Subsequent investigation led to the identity of the deceased as well as the man who fled. Later this morning, Detectives located the second man who provided a statement to detectives that supported the account of the event given by the couple attacked in the car. According to the second man, the deceased became increasingly enraged over being denied money and returned to seek revenge. The second man described the deceased as the aggressor even though they were friends.
It has been determined the individual who shot the other man does have a valid concealed weapons permit.
They will of course do a thorough check of the details, but short of seriously different new evidence, this is an open-and-shut textbook example of a self-defense shooting.
Yes, the second amendment protects the right of individuals to own and use guns, including handguns.
Comments (14)
Thank goodness for the second amendment. May it not be undermined by political correctness or anything else. Hopefully all will go smoothly here for a person who sounds like he was defending himself in a perfectly legitimate fashion. (Though no doubt he already has some legal expenses.)
Posted by Lydia | May 23, 2012 4:39 PM
And what was the race of the perp?
Notice that newspapers are not reporting the race of the perps?
Posted by WLindsayWheeler | May 23, 2012 9:59 PM
This wasn't a newspaper, it is a sheriff's office report for neighborhood watch groups. I too noticed that no race was mentioned too. Before you judge, though: looking at the deceased person's name, (it is in the news release, I just did not include that portion, since I don't think everyone needs that), I would not make any assumption that he is black or hispanic. The name doesn't suggest it.
Posted by Tony | May 23, 2012 10:08 PM
Only the criminals have unlicensed guns in this country. When they use them and murder someone, the media concentrates on telling us what a nice person the victim was and what a 'tragedy' the shooting was etc.
Getting a shotgun licence is very difficult and it's impossible to get a licence for a handgun.
Posted by Alex | May 24, 2012 3:26 AM
It's possible that originalism and other doctrines that attempt to find out what was "really meant" are partially to blame for the attacks on the second amendment. By not insisting on simply reading the Constitution as written, intentions be damned, the second amendment has become a lot deeper than it really is. It has two components: a prepositional phrase with no legal value and a legal statute which places a blanket prohibition on federal firearms regulations. The second amendment, taken literally, means that in no time and place can the federal government restrict the right to keep and bear arms from a firearm as weak as a BB gun, to a .50 machine gun mounted to a Hummer.
Posted by Mike T | May 24, 2012 7:00 AM
Or a sword. I often get a sort of amused feeling at the thought that "arms" very likely would have been thought at the time to include a fully loaded sword belt. I wonder what the deterrent effect would be if men were allowed to walk about wearing those.
Posted by Lydia | May 24, 2012 9:58 AM
I recently broke down and brought a shotgun and a pistol. Why? [The story of the unpleasant experience that led you to buy guns for home and property defense is...interesting and shocking but is not consistent with our standards for family-friendly site content. Thanks. LM]
Posted by Stephen E Dalton | May 24, 2012 11:13 AM
Are you talking about a conceal to carry permit? Not that you can really carry a shotgun in a concealed manner.
Buying a gun in most circumstances is still fairly simple. Laws vary from state to state, but buying guns is still fairly easy. I will agree that it's not as easy as it should be for, "law abiding citizens."
I live in CA and picked up a 12 gauge shotgun yesterday. Just went to the store, signed the papers for the background check, and picked up the gun 11 days later. I'll get a pistol next month probably; for that I just need to take a safety exam.
Posted by Joey H | May 24, 2012 6:22 PM
Alex is writing from the United Kingdom, Joey H. Which says it all on the subject of gun ownership.
You know, the UK: Where some young men approached a woman's house in a threatening manner while she was making dinner, she made a gesture with the kitchen knife she happened to have in her hand (while standing in her own kitchen), they saw this through the window and went away, and the police admonished her that she could get in trouble for having stood in her own kitchen and having waved knife at a potential set of attackers approaching her house. The UK, where you can pretty much count on getting in big trouble if you defend yourself, and where guns are considered way evil.
My sympathies go out to Alex and all sensible people in that situation with no 2nd Amendment rights.
Posted by Lydia | May 24, 2012 6:30 PM
By the way, in case anyone is wondering: I am _not_ revealing privileged information about a commentator in that last comment. In fact, I haven't even looked at any "backstage" information. I know that Alex is UK-based from other comments in other threads and, again, sympathize with him accordingly on the restrictions that imposes.
Posted by Lydia | May 24, 2012 6:31 PM
Oh, this makes perfect sense then. I do apologize for my hastiness in posting; thank you for the correction.
Posted by Joey H | May 24, 2012 8:52 PM
Mike, I like to agree with this, and most of the time for most of the Constitution I have no problem applying the same approach. But I keep getting this niggling set of questions in my head about "arms": does that include a bazooka, a stinger missile, an artillery piece, a 120mm gun mounted on an Abrams M1A1 main battle tank, a Raytheon Standard (anti-ballistic) Missile 3, and an ICBM? Why not? I feel absolutely confident that the Constitution protects my having a rifle. I also feel confident that it is not supposed to protect my having an Abrams. I can't say why.
Posted by Tony | May 24, 2012 10:31 PM
Of course I know that an American citizen has the constitutional right to protect his life and family (and property) by force of arms if necessary: I envy someone who enjoys that birthright.
Here we have the pageantry and the country churchyards, but we don't have a number of important liberties which Americans take for granted. If only our ancestors had had the sense to build on what Oliver Cromwell established and not restore the monarchy, maybe we'd have a republic by now.
Posted by Alex | May 25, 2012 3:16 AM
Not to get into a big history discussion, but I doubt it. My impression is that ol' Oliver was more a personal dictator than anything else. The removal of gun rights in England happened _after_ the monarchy had become a mere figurehead and under the aegis of the sort of soft-totalitarian "social democracy" which is going to become more and more grimly familiar to us residents of the West as time goes on.
Posted by Lydia | May 25, 2012 8:36 AM