Stupid Headline

Stupid headline: Kearns man shot battling burglar
Actually it should read: Kearns man shot while battling burglar

The man went into his house, knowing the burglar was close by because he could hear him breathing. Not smart.

The gun grabbers are jumping on this because in their view it supports the notion that owning a gun will get you shot.

What it illustrates is the need to have a CFP and to be carrying the firearm on your person when you leave the house.


From the Salt Lake Tribune:
A Kearns man was shot while fighting a burglar in his own home Thursday.

Chad R. Morley, 27, returned home to the 6000 South block of 6070 West in unincorporated Kearns about 9:15 a.m. after meeting his father for morning coffee. Piled near his front door was a "bunch of high-dollar merchandise," such as his laptop computer and other electronics, Morley said.

"I could sense someone was in there, hear a pant of breath," he said.

Morley went to get his gun, which was hidden in the living room, and, as he turned, saw the burglar hiding behind his door.

The two men fought. When Morley looked around to avoid a table, the burglar hit him over the head with something.

Hand slippery with blood, Morley couldn't stop the robber from shooting him in the upper arm with his own gun. The bullet tore through muscle and cracked the bone.

After the shot, the robber ran away, and Morley called for police from a neighbor's house.

To Carry A Spare Magazine, Or Not Carry At All?

I belong to an online forum called Bersa Talk, which is a community for Bersa brand handgun enthusiasts. On a recent thread the question was posed: "Is it standard to carry a spare magazine, or just the one fully loaded mag with one round in the chamber?"

I responded that I carry a spare mag if I think to grab one before I leave the house. After the Trolley Square shooting last year, it makes sense to me that one magazine just might not be enough. And after a recent home invasion in West Valley, in which 5 thugs invaded a home and held the occupants at gunpoint while they hauled out their valuables, it might not be a bad idea to carry a spare magazine on your person, at home.

Dozens of others responded one way or another. It turns out that many do carry a spare. As often happens on internet fora, there was eventually a little bit of topic drift as the debate warmed up and strongly held views were expressed and defended. In the latter stages of the thread, it was dominated by two participants who were sparring back and forth, and the topic became whether some people shouldn't carry a gun at all. Here's a segment that I found particularly interesting:

RF: From a statistical standpoint, not carrying AT ALL, AT ANY TIME, is...defensible.

GB: Interesting assertion, and one that evolution, grand design, or whatever has settled upon as racial survival strategies for a large number of species. It manifests itself as relatively unarmed prey species that congregate in large numbers in herds, flocks, schools, or whatever the appropriate term might be. Anyway, the principle is that even with predation which will certainly claim a large number of the herd, flock, school or whatever -- enough will survive to ensure the survival of the species into the next generaton. It is all fine and good if you are one of the survivors. "Baaa" says the sheep(le)! It ain't so good if you are one of the culls who gets predated. A better personal survival strategy is to recognize the existence of the predators, be vigilant and prepared to fight back against them. That way your personal odds of survival become markedly greater than that of the unarmed herd, flock, school or whatever. Oddly enough, the presence of sufficient numbers of members of the herd who are vigilant and prepared to fight back against the predators increases not only their own chances of survival but that of the entire herd. It is the tact that is taken by such animals as elephants, bison and baboons.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that while the not carrying at all, ever, is defensible ("Baaa"), it is not optimal. It does nothing to combat ever increasing predation. It is largely based on the premise that life is cheap. That individuals in the herd may be sacrificed to the predators as long as there are enough who survive to insure survival of the herd, and that should there not be enough survivors then the herd itself will die as nature dictates. Personally, I don't hold to that "life is cheap" mindset that this necessarily implies. Certainly not my life or my loved ones.

RF: If you have a normal lifestyle...the chances you will be involved in a true life-or-death self-defense scenario are very remote indeed.

GB: That chance is remote, yes. But non-zero. And, as society continues to coarsen and the value of life is held in ever less regards by those who engage in lives of crime, that chance become greater over time. The point is that the cost of being caught without carrying when you truly need it is so high that the remote chance argument is negated. Same thing as with catastrophic health insurance. Same thing as having homeowner's insurance, flood insurance or a fire extinguisher. Since the cost of not carrying could very well be your life or the life of a loved one, carrying is justified even if the odds of needing to use it is remote.

RF: Some call CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] 'paranoid' behavior.

GB: No more paranoid than someone who has a fire extinguisher in the pantry, or who takes out flood insurance. It is actually the act of viewing the world as it is, and not of viewing the world through rose colored glasses. It comes from actually contemplating worst case scenarios and being prepared for such in a rational manner.

RF: Others think it necessary to be prepared no matter the risk-small or large... Call it what you will-it's all about choice, and risk/benefit.

GB: It should be a choice, and from the pro-carry folks it is normally treated as exactly that. The vast majority of pro-carry people have no desire to coerce people who do not wish to carry to carry anyway. It is viewed as a personal choice, as it should be. However, the actions of the anti-carry folks is not so -- they seek not only to not carry themselves, but to take away the option of carry from those who wish to do so, by way of legal means or by way of societal pressure, stigmatizing those who desire to carry as being "paranoid" or anti-social.

RF: I choose to carry intermittently, and believe the choice I have made as to carry mode satisfies that risk/benefit analysis.

GB: Yes, that is your prerogative. Personally, I choose to carry whenever possible in the most optimum manner feasable, since it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty when a true sociopath, psychopath, or other variety of violent criminal may choose to attack myself or [family member]. That lack of certainty and the cost/risk analysis that I have undertaken leads me to do just that. The cost of an unprepared for encounter is just too high, and the risk of one is non-zero and ever increasing.

It was a lively conversation. If you're interested in reading the whole thread, here's a link: http://bersatalk.com/forums/1/55676/ShowThread.aspx

And here's a link to Bersa Talk: http://bersatalk.com/

HB473 to Allow Open Carry By Permittees

Open carry is a bad idea--but it shouldn't be illegal.

That's my take on a bill coming before the Utah State Legislature that will clarify the right of concealed weapon permittees to openly carry firearms in public places in Utah.

In a Salt Lake Tribune article entitled: "Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly", HB473 would stipulate that it's not illegal for CCW holders to carry in full view.

"The proposal would ensure that concealed-weapons permit holders are not required to conceal their firearms. It would allow permittees to openly carry loaded weapons into schools, colleges, hospitals and other public arenas. Proponents say the measure only "clarifies" existing law to ensure a right permittees already have, while opponents say open-carry would result in "untenable situations" at schools. "

Apparently current gun laws allow permittees to open carry anyplace where it's legal to carry concealed, but it's not totally clear. In other words, the law has been poorly written, and doesn't properly convey the intent of the legislators.

"I'm not saying [open-carry is] a great idea; I'm just saying it's not illegal," said gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian. "This [legislation] is not creating new law. It's a definition of an existing ability permit holders already have."

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.

"I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."

Additional confusion exists as to whether an inadvertent display of a concealed weapon, such as could occur when an armed man opens his coat to reach for a phone or wallet, constitutes a violation of the law, Shurtleff added.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV or the internet, but if I understand correctly, Utah state law doesn't currently require law abiding citizens to have a permit in order to openly carry firearms. There are limitations, of course. For example, if you don't have a Concealed Firearm Permit, you can't openly carry a loaded gun inside a motor vehicle.

I'm not sure this is a fight worth fighting, because the rights of concealed carry permit holders is pretty well settled here in Utah. What this does is open up another can of worms regarding the rights of people to carry openly. Gun rights activists are going to have to fight and win battles all over again that they've already fought and won.

I'm not sure what the language of HB473 actually says, but my feeling is that it should state that open carry by permittees is not illegal in any area in the state that concealed carry is permitted. Also inadvertent, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon isn't an illegal act.

Now, here's why I think open carry is a bad idea.

1. There is a strong counter-culture in society that is strongly opposed to regular citizens owning and carrying guns. Openly carrying firearms needlessly stirs the pot and riles up those people who would take any opportunity to strengthen gun control laws and confiscate all guns not issued by law enforcement or the military. The Second Amendment doesn't exist for these people. The fact that gun control laws only disarm the public and give career criminals a safe work environment is just so much rhetoric, to their way of thinking.

2. Openly carrying firearms marks a person as a target for theft or even worse. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms, and a favored way of gaining possession of guns is to steal them. There have been many documented instances where people openly carrying guns were robbed and "relieved" of their hardware. Also, open carry marks you as a target for any person with criminal intent to shoot you first. A recent example comes easily to mind: the case of the digruntled citizen who entered a city council meeting, walked up to the armed police officer who was present, gunned him down, and then went to work on the city council unmolested.

I say it shouldn't be illegal to inadvertently or unintentionally expose your legal carry weapon, but let's keep them concealed if we can. The last thing I want is to be the focus of attention when I carry a gun into a room full of people.

Dennis Prager Asks Some Questions About School Shootings

In an article that appeared online at Jewish World Review, Dennis Prager asks some hard questions about recent trends in news coverage of shootings at universities. Mr. Prager has his own take on each of these questions, and I suggest you read the column for yourself.

Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."

"6 dead" included the murderer. Why wasn't the headline "5 killed at NIU"? It is nothing less than moronic that the media routinely lump murderers and their victims in the same tally.

My take is that the mindset of our media gatekeepers is that the dead perpetrator is not the real "bad guy". Gun Violence is the real bad guy, and the dead perpetrator is just another unfortunate victim.

Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?

...Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider ... [option c]. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.

It's part of the narrative, isn't it? Guns are evil, not people (except for evangelical Christians, conservatives and Republicans).

Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
If a murderer used a knife to murder five students, no news headlines would read, "Knifeman Kills Five." So why always "shooter" and "gunman"?

Obviously, since the narrative is that guns are bad, not people, phrasing it this way focuses attention, and also the blame, on guns and gun violence, instead of placing responsibility for the evil act upon the actor.

Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?

Perhaps it has something to do with our compunction to not try and convict people in the press before they are actually convicted in a court of law. And it's easier to throw the perps in with the victims if they're not classified as murderers. Remember, guns are evil, not people, and it's easier to sell that narrative if we don't call them "murderers".

Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?

I don't think think there's any question that they would, and of course, they'd be right to do it. Mr. Prager makes a valid point in his article. Read the whole thing here.

Bizarre Catch-22 in Wisconsin Gun Case

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that the state’s concealed carry law prohibiting concealed carry of a dangerous weapon is unconstitutional in view of the fact that the state constitution allows citizens to be armed for the purpose of self defense. The judge issued the ruling while dropping charges against a pizza delivery man who had been charged in the case of an armed robbery in which he drew his weapon and shot his would be robber. He faced up to 9 months in jail if convicted.

I don’t know if this is a situation where the law becomes clearer or more confused. It sounds like the Wisconsin State Legislature needs to take this issue in hand and come up with a solution to the problem. I think the right solution would be to repeal the concealed carry law, or at least make it legal for law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. They can do it like Vermont, which doesn’t require a permit. Or they can do it like 39 other states and issue permits. Or they could just make it a felony for convicted felons to carry concealed deadly weapons, and forgo all the expense of background checks and permits. Just one man’s opinion.

Here’s a link to the story.

Strict Gun Control Works---To Empower Criminals

Richard Munday in the London Times Online has a column decrying the failure of strict gun control in Great Britain, which has totally disarmed its law abiding subjects (I almost said citizens, but unarmed subjects aren’t truly citizens, at least in the eyes of their government). The author points to recent events in the U.S. and cites differences and similarities in the violent crime rates in both countries.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has "banned" pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

-----------------------------------------------------

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

------------------------------------------------------

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

(Bold mine)

So, in the U.S., in states where law abiding citizens can legally carry firearms for self defense, crime rates are much lower than areas where it's strictly forbidden. And in Britain, where it's people are totally disarmed, they're suffering an even worse epidemic of violent crime. It's an interesting article, worthy of your time to read the whole thing.

Ban Guns, Make Murder and Gun Violence Go Away!

Tonight I watched the show on CNN by Anderson Cooper about gun violence in the south side of Chicago which has claimed the lives of 28 inner city school children so far this year. The most recent victim, Blair Holt, 17, a high school jr. just wrapping up his school year, was the most recent victim of random violence. Normally he takes a 40 minute ride on a CTA bus to his grandparents’ store to spend the late afternoon until his parents pick him up. He was on the bus with several of his school mates when a gang banger boarded the bus and opened fire at a rival gang member with a semi-automatic handgun, who apparently was unconcerned about hurting anybody else. Five students were shot, but Blair was the most seriously injured with a wound to the chest, with internal bleeding. He died later that night around 9 p.m.

Blair was not a gang member. His future was bright and he had set high goals for himself. His mother was a fire fighter and his father was a policeman. He had a strong and loving family background. But he was aware of the violent death culture around him and had no illusions about the possibility that his young life could be snuffed out at any instant. The fact that his life was cut so short by a random act of violence is a horrible tragedy.

But he’s only one of 28 such cases this year, of school children in Chicago, killed, not on school property but on their way to or from school, and some even in their own homes.

People in Chicago are angry and upset. There was a protest, and locals demanded safe passage to and from school. Other people are demanding that the state legislature pass stricter gun laws.

Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools had this to say when interviewed by Anderson Cooper: “The common denominator in Columbine, Virginia Tech, and all the other school shootings, is guns. People should not have guns. We as a society value our rights to keep and bear arms more than we value the lives of our children. It’s wrong.”

I’ll tell you what’s wrong: this kind of thinking that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to solve this problem. It’s wrong headed and simplistic. It doesn’t address the source of the problem, which is the violent inner city gang culture and morality that says “don’t be a snitch.”

Gun Control advocates point to countries like Australia and Great Britain, where they’ve outlawed gun ownership by citizens. Gun deaths have gone down. True enough. But now, only criminals have guns. The law abiding citizens have turned theirs in, and are now unarmed potential victims. Many criminals have kept their firearms, but the others have simply turned to knives, chains and other “contact weapons”. Violent crimes have not gone down, because violent criminals know they won’t get shot. Violent crimes have actually risen and the crime rate is spiraling upward.

You can pass laws making guns illegal, and the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, but not the criminals. Criminals know that strict gun laws guarantee safety for armed criminals, so it doesn’t make sense to turn in their guns. Enforcing existing laws, attacking the gang problem instead of the so called gun problem, prosecuting criminals instead of gun owners, might have a more positive effect than just taking otherwise legal guns away from otherwise law abiding citizens. Criminalizing gun ownership is not going to solve the problem of inner city violence and death among inner city school kids on their way to and from school. Legal gun owners aren’t killing school kids in Chicago. All you do by passing more laws is make more people criminals. Enforce existing law vigorously and things might change. Make criminals responsible and accountable for their crimes, and things might change. Put the blame on guns, and make guns the villain, and nothing will change.

City and State executives who are responsible for enforcing the law aren’t taking that responsibility seriously, and only muddy the waters by calling upon the legislatures to write more laws with stronger enforcement provisions. But they feel the pressure to do something, anything that will make it look like they're actually concerned and want to do something, so that’s what they do. And legislatures add to the problem by responding to the pressure to pass more laws instead of sticking to their real function, which is to provide actual funding for vigorous enforcement of existing laws. And the revolving door that characterizes our current judicial system really adds to the problem by turning violent criminals loose because the jails and prisons are over crowded and incapable of holding our deserving criminal population. But let’s make more criminals by outlawing gun ownership by law abiding, non-violent citizens. That makes a lot sense, doesn't it?