|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Gun owners say they buy for protection, but harm is more likely
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Tracy Lawrence was making coffee around 6 a.m. one day last June when he glanced out a window and, to his shock, saw two teenagers casing his yard in rural Jackson County.
Although it was nearly summer, they were dressed in stocking caps and heavy coats. One was near Lawrence's pickup truck; another near his garage.
Lawrence grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and stepped out on back porch.
"What the hell are you doing?" he yelled.
The two 18-year-olds took off. Lawrence ran after them and fired his gun five times. He told police he didn't mean to hurt them. But Hunter Lentz dropped dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Matthew McMillen was killed by a bullet that ripped through his back and tore his aorta. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/16/2017)
|
Good case for jury nullification. It was a bad shooting, but the results were positive.
As far as the "harm is more likely", my guns absolutely provide protection with negligible probability of the adverse outcomes mentioned in the article. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/16/2017)
|
| Law abiding means that a person should know the laws! This person did NOT know the laws that he should have! Jail time! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
