DuckSouth.com

According to the "experts," business owners who are being robbed should not attempt to defend themselves and/or their property b/c there's a chance that someone might be hurt.

I saw it. To correct your statement, the "expert's" statement was in regards to innocent bystandards have the chance to be hurt. That statement was said as a video was being shown of a person behind the counter opened fire with a lady holding a child within what appears (due to camera angle) to be 4 to 5 feet away from the child. Child was on the ladies hip between the lady and the firearm too. I completely agree with the "experts" statement and I feel that in that specific video, the situation could have been handled differently. In the sense that I feel he clerk acted to quickly and was to quick to use the firearm. Instead of stalling and allowing time for the lady and child to pace away from the area, the clerk decided the surrounding environment was not important.

I am for use of firearms and own many of them myself. However, I feel that many of our current society gets a sense of tough guy when they have a firearm and are to quick to use it or don't fully think out the situation they are in and want to use the firearm being everyone else does.

yeah, I laughed when i heard that said... Don't defend yourself or your possessions.

What I don't like is when a small percentage of "bad" incidents will totally outweigh the positives in the same type scenario. I read that 750,000 robberies, muggings, attempted kidnappings, attempted rapes, etc were avoided every year because the victim had a gun to protect themselves - now balance that against the accidental shootings that occur when victims are trying to protect themselves and the accidents are a very small % compared to the overall number of crimes prevented. Liberals look at the small % of accidents and disregard the number of potential victims that were saved because they could protect themselves. Liberals plan would be to ban guns altogether then leave noone protected because of a few isolated incidents as a whole. Yea, they eliminated the 2% of accidents that would happen when someone is protecting themself, but leave 750,000 people without protection when they would've needed it. Makes sense.

Just like the crap that is going on with the NFL....since a small % of former players have had mental problems/nuerological problems the focus now is to completely change the game. I'm all for player safety but if it gets changed to the point that football isn't what made people enjoy watching football then the NFL will lose it's huge popularity - hell, the way it's going I could see the NFL going the way of boxing and noone gives a crap about it in 20 years. It's a tough game and you can't make it 100% safe, that's the way it is - if it's 100% safe then it's not football.

There will always be those the believe in being a victim and those that don't. We just have to agree to disagree and defend ourselves while staying within the law.