KEY POINTS:
I dont think there'll be many people unhappy with the decision of two JPs to dismiss firearms charges against gun store owner Greg Carvell.
Carvell is, of course, the man who famously remedied a machete-wielding intruder's lead deficiency with a bullet to the stomach when the intruder burst
into his gun shop.
Comments on the shooting at the time ranged from: "He should have aimed a couple of feet higher" to "The guy deserves a medal". Quite rightly, there wasn't one jot of sympathy for the ventilated intruder.
A lot of people suggested that Carvell's actions might have prevented a worse crime - the intruder, Ricky Beckham, could have got the keys out of Carvell's pockets, unlocked the cabinets, loaded the guns in the store and gone on a rampage - but really, Beckham showed so little intelligence that it's a wonder he could walk and wave a machete at the same time.
Fine motor actions - such as loading a rifle - would surely have been beyond him.
Still, it must have been a terrifying situation for Carvell and his co-worker, and having to defend the charges was just another pressure he and his family had to cope with.
While I can understand the Crown deciding to lay charges, surely this should have been one of the cases where common sense took precedence over a literal interpretation of the law.
Sure, if Beckham had walked into a handicraft store and the little old lady behind the counter had blown him away with a Luger, there might have been an element of surprise. But come on! You walk into a gun store, waving a whopping great cane cutter around, and you don't get shot? That would have been the story.
In the main, I think anyone who puts a bullet into someone else should have to account for themselves. The idea of a whole nation of service station workers, dairy owners and liquor store licensees bristling with weaponry, armed and ready to fire, is an alarming one indeed.
I shuddered when I read that Carvell's wife hoped the case would send a message that it was okay to defend yourself with a gun, a baseball bat or anything. Because really, the law covers self-defence quite nicely.
Carvell wasn't being prosecuted for using the gun in self-defence, he'd only been charged with possession of a pistol for unlawful purposes. And, as it turned out, it's perfectly lawful to use a pistol against an armed man threatening to hurt you.
Although this appears to have been a clear cut case of self-defence, there should always be a police investigation - unless we want to descend to the law of nature and allow each person to be judge, jury and in some cases, executioner, of their fellow man.
So there was an investigation, Carvell accounted for himself satisfactorily, and now he can put the whole nasty business behind him.
Perhaps though, once the lawyers' bills have been paid, it might be a good idea for the Carvells to invest in a bit more security.
Perhaps they could start by equipping the store with a locked entrance door, one that only the staff inside can open - a bit like the doors those high-end, luxury goods stores and jewellers have.
You have to press a buzzer and be raked over by the snooty staff before they deign to grant you access.
If people are so concerned about nutters gaining access to guns, perhaps the responsible thing to do might be to put in just such a door at the Carvell gun shop - and all gun shops around the country.
Surely gun sellers don't depend on foot traffic for their custom.
I've never bought a gun, so I don't know the modus operandi for buying firearms, but I'm certain you wouldn't be walking past a shop window and suddenly be overtaken by the urge to buy a rifle.
Possibly a locked door won't prevent truly evil criminal masterminds from ransacking a gun shop, if that was what they intended, but it would prevent those who were dangling off the end of the food chain from gaining access.
You see a half-dressed idiot waving a machete - you don't let him in. And wouldn't that have saved a whole lot of hassle and heartache?
