OKC Pharmacist Defends Self, Gets Called Racist

[Cats Cats Cats]

Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.  

Well if he only had one gun I bet he wouldn't have shot him the extra 5 times.

[Conan71]

Well if he only had one gun I bet he wouldn't have shot him the extra 5 times.

Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol.  Most revolvers are six shots.  Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.

[PepePeru]

Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.  

Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?

Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?

Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court.  Right?

and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion, which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it.
I'm not expecting you to, either.  Honestly,  I don't care either way,

[Gaspar]

Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol.  Most revolvers are six shots.  Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.

One shot should be adequate if placed correctly, using the proper weapon and load. 

Six shots is just sloppy.

Put yourself in his shoes, where your choice is perceived as death v.s. defiance.  He may not have done a very good job of it, but he did refuse to be a victim.   Probably saved a dozen more pharmacies from future armed robbery.  Perhaps even saved the life of a future pharmacist, innocent customer, or cop. 

[Conan71]

Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.  

Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?

Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?

Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court.  Right?

and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion, which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it.
I'm not expecting you to, either.  Honestly,  I don't care either way,

Now you are just starting to sound like an obstinate crank. 

[PepePeru]

Now you are just starting to sound like an obstinate crank. 

My opinion, of this individual based on the what has transpired since the event, which is that it took 'several hours' to clean out his weapons cache, that he's done a self-promotional Bill O'Reilly interview, has helped formulate my opinion that Ersland is a right-wing, freako gun-nut that was just waiting for his chance to commit "legal" murder...and would have got away with it, had there not been cameras, that, thankfully, only serve to help the prosecution.

So, this guy's already started showing his stripes.

Which is exactly the justification behind my opinion that the number of guns this guy apparently owns, makes him more likely to commit murder, than, say, myself, who owns none.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol.  Most revolvers are six shots.  Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.

I'm just sayin he went and got a 2nd gun.  Does he have his stop robbers gun and then his, shoot people on the floor gun?  What about shooting rabid racoons gun?

[RecycleMichael]

I'm just sayin he went and got a 2nd gun.  Does he have his stop robbers gun and then his, shoot people on the floor gun?  What about shooting rabid racoons gun?

He probably has his favorites on certain days. Mounds/Almond Joy kinda thing...

[altruismsuffers]

Not guilty verdict for cops in 50-shot slaying

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/verdict_near_for_cops_in_50sho.html

The cops can do it, so can this guy

[cannon_fodder]

Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?

My inquiry does not "beg the question."   Begging the question refers to a pattern of circular logic.  Why is the bible correct?  Because God says so.  Why is God correct?  Because the Bible says so.  I believe you meant to say my question "lends itself to the question. . ." or some similar phrase.   But I digress.

But to answer your question - when a person has a felony complaint filed against them for a many crimes they must surrender their firearms.  Once again, it has nothing to do with the propensity of a person with many guns to commit crimes.  Why is a person accused of rape ordered to have no contact with the accuser?  HE MUST BE GUILTY!

Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?

His rights were not revoked, they were suspended.  They are suspended because he has been accused of a felony.  Most felons can not own firearms, thus accused felons surrender their weapons.  Again, it is not an indication of guilt.  Why are people accused of computer crimes ordered to surrender their computers?  HE MUST BE GUILTY!

You have serious issues equating governmental action against someone with guilt. 

Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court.  Right?

For the third time, someone accused of a violent felony has to surrender their weapons.  I'm a gun advocate, but that rule even makes sense to me.  Generally the State has a decent reason for accusing someone, this temporary remedial remedy is not that intrusive contrasted with the potential cost to the public of a person believed by the State to be a murderer to house firearms.  Why do people accused of vehicular homicide have their licenses suspended?  GUILTY.

and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion,

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.  You could have saved a boat load of trouble by saying "in my opinion, the more firearms a person owns the more likely that person is to want to execute people."  Which is an ignorant statement, but is safe as your opinion.

However, that opinion does not make it relevant to the underlying issues in this case.  You have yet to explain to me how the number of firearms owned makes it more or less likely that the homicide was not justified.  You simply said that in your opinion peoples propensity for crime is in direct correlation to the quantity of firearms owned.  Which, thankfully, is neither a statistical fact or important to the court.

which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it. I'm not expecting you to, either.  Honestly,  I don't care either way,

Correct.  I do not believe the ownership of firearms increases ones propensity to commit crimes.   I've owned firearms my entire life and the worst crime I have ever committed is doing 55 in a 45 one time in my life.  No one I know who has legally owned firearms, which means most people, has ever committed a crime involving firearms.

Gasp?  7 firearms?  CRIMINAL!

1 Shotgun for sport shooting
1 Rifle for distance shooting
1 pistol for home defense/target shooting
1 .22 caliber for my son (if you have firearms in your home, your children need to understand and respect them or get rid of them)
and 3 WWII vintage rifles as collectors items.

If I were this business owner, how would that knowledge change the facts of the case?  Back to the point - how does ownership of multiple firearms preclude the facts in this case from being justified homicide?  Also, could you be more clear about what your opinion is?

(I don't even have  are real horse in this race, I just find your bias interesting)

[PepePeru]

My inquiry does not "beg the question."   Begging the question refers to a pattern of circular logic.  Why is the bible correct?  Because God says so.  Why is God correct?  Because the Bible says so.  I believe you meant to say my question "lends itself to the question. . ." or some similar phrase.   But I digress.

But to answer your question - when a person has a felony complaint filed against them for a many crimes they must surrender their firearms.  Once again, it has nothing to do with the propensity of a person with many guns to commit crimes.  Why is a person accused of rape ordered to have no contact with the accuser?  HE MUST BE GUILTY!

His rights were not revoked, they were suspended.  They are suspended because he has been accused of a felony.  Most felons can not own firearms, thus accused felons surrender their weapons.  Again, it is not an indication of guilt.  Why are people accused of computer crimes ordered to surrender their computers?  HE MUST BE GUILTY!

You have serious issues equating governmental action against someone with guilt. 

For the third time, someone accused of a violent felony has to surrender their weapons.  I'm a gun advocate, but that rule even makes sense to me.  Generally the State has a decent reason for accusing someone, this temporary remedial remedy is not that intrusive contrasted with the potential cost to the public of a person believed by the State to be a murderer to house firearms.  Why do people accused of vehicular homicide have their licenses suspended?  GUILTY.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.  You could have saved a boat load of trouble by saying "in my opinion, the more firearms a person owns the more likely that person is to want to execute people."  Which is an ignorant statement, but is safe as your opinion.

However, that opinion does not make it relevant to the underlying issues in this case.  You have yet to explain to me how the number of firearms owned makes it more or less likely that the homicide was not justified.  You simply said that in your opinion peoples propensity for crime is in direct correlation to the quantity of firearms owned.  Which, thankfully, is neither a statistical fact or important to the court.

Correct.  I do not believe the ownership of firearms increases ones propensity to commit crimes.   I've owned firearms my entire life and the worst crime I have ever committed is doing 55 in a 45 one time in my life.  No one I know who has legally owned firearms, which means most people, has ever committed a crime involving firearms.

Gasp?  7 firearms?  CRIMINAL!

1 Shotgun for sport shooting
1 Rifle for distance shooting
1 pistol for home defense/target shooting
1 .22 caliber for my son (if you have firearms in your home, your children need to understand and respect them or get rid of them)
and 3 WWII vintage rifles as collectors items.

If I were this business owner, how would that knowledge change the facts of the case?  Back to the point - how does ownership of multiple firearms preclude the facts in this case from being justified homicide?  Also, could you be more clear about what your opinion is?

(I don't even have  are real horse in this race, I just find your bias interesting)

"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them."

Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.

So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.

"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."

Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?

You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.

http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412

but I digress...

[Townsend]

It was one shot to the head and 5 center mass right?

That's how I was taught. 

He lost it and relied on training?

[Conan71]

"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them."

Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.

So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.

"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."

Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?

You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.

http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412

but I digress...

Now that you've done a better job of explaining where you formed your opinion, I'll pick the dumbass card back up and save it for another discussion. 

I can't say I speak for every legal gun owner, but I can say (as CF alluded to) the vast majority of legal gun owners don't find ways to use their weapons in illegal ways.  Owning a gun doesn't mean you want to shoot someone.  I own long guns and pistols.  I don't hunt, I enjoy target shooting, and I keep a pistol for home protection.  I also keep them locked up where they won't fall into the wrong hands.  I don't plan on ever shooting anyone, but if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm not planning on sitting down and having a fireside chat with them about their disadvantaged youth that caused them to invade my home and endanger myself or a member of my family. 

I was taught that you don't aim a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them and you don't shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.  It's unfortunate that the young man who was shot was un-armed (hell, it's unfortunate he was involved in the first place).  Ersland likely has been taught the same wisdom.  All he knows is he saw a gun, two robbers, and thought he and his assistant had been shot.  He apparently took the easiest shot first.  He had no way of knowing if the second kid was trying to pull out a gun or not.

There's my .02, if you guys want to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead, it's starting to get a little rank.

[cannon_fodder]

"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them. " Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, when a person is charged with a felony their rights to firearms are suspended. Hence, his statement was correct.  When the state declares you have no rights, you have no rights.  But would it make him more or less likely to be a murderer in your world if he surrendered them of his own accord?

5) A person charged with a felony can not own guns.
6) If a person is charged with a very serious crime, they can not own guns unless proven innocent.
7) When a pharmacist shoots a robber and is accused of murder, they take his guns away.

Not sure how else to say that.  It is clear you lack a basic understanding of criminal law.  I honestly tried to answer your questions and educate you.  I have apparently failed.

So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.

"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."

Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?

I was playing semantics. I was attempting to correct your misuse of a common phrase.  You accused me of a logical fallacy (begging the question) when in fact I had committed no such fallacy.  Defending my logic is not mere semantics, as if defining the language we use is trivial in the first place (to most people the difference between homicide and murder is "mere" semantics.  When it is neither semantic nor petty, as they meant to imply, as the words have clear separate meanings).

It would also be semantics if I started an etymological discussion on the ability to revoke ones own right.  Revoke being to call back or rescind.  Given that the man didn't grant himself the right, he can't call it back.  He can surrender or abandon the right I suppose.  But delving deeper into that question is truly an exercise in the trivial semantics you referenced.

If the connotation of my statement was not clear, I apologize.  When I referred to "selling drugs" following a discussion of felonies I was referring to the illegal sale of drugs.  But in the spirit of the game you declared, your pointing out my lack of clarity is an example of "sharp shooting" (as Al Pacino put it so well) more so than semantics. 

You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.

http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412

Thank you for the correction. 

but I digress...

Generally that phrase is followed by getting back on point.  You failed to materially address any of the points I brought up.  If you wish to continue the discussion please elevate above the trivial level at which it now resides.  I have repeatedly asked you to clarify positions and even framed arguments for you to support.  You have failed to do so.

I'm bored of the banter.  Please provide substance.