Drop the lawn gnome and take two steps back
January 8th, 2009
Happened across this on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum in a thread about what laws should gun owners be pushing for in 2009:
At the very bottom of the list are “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws. I’d rather have more freedom to carry guns in order to protect my life and the lives of loved ones, than to be able to shoot someone for stealing a lawn gnome or running away with a case of beer.
Below, the writer adds
Ya caught me… I was using hyperbole.
Take my opinion what it’s worth, but it seems to me that it would be more beneficial to allow more people to more easily defend themselves against crimes for which lethal force is currently justified for self-defense, than to expand the justifications for the use of lethal force for the same number of people who are carrying now. It would be nice to do both, but we only have enough political capital to do one or the other.
This is actually a pretty good point, though I don’t know that I happen to agree with it. ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws won’t help a lot if only the bad guys have guns (which often seems to be the case in certain parts of Pennsylvania, I gather), but if attackers (or their survivors) can successfully sue those who defend themselves there is still no balance.
Still, I’d rather put down a bad guy today and get sued tomorrow than not have a gun when I need one.
Tags: PA
