Newborn Grandbaby

Meet Anson Riley Petersen, born at 1:46 p.m. Mountain Time yesterday, 27 May 2008. He weighed in at 8 lbs. 9 oz.

Mother Jodi and baby (and daddy Brad) are all doing great.

So far he hasn't been very fussy at all. We were there for well over an hour and he hardly even whimpered. Quite content to just lie there and sleep. Brad laid him down and uncovered him to see if he'd object. Nope. ZZZZZZZ.

So he tickled his feet. He didn't like that very much, and objected. "Daddy, quit picking on me!"

Soon he was right back in Slumberville.

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.

The thief doesn't always run away, as in the commercial

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/18472794.html
Suspect in St. Paul break-in caught by homeowner
by Pat Pheifer

Jon Sokol wasn't trying to be a hero when he confronted a burglary suspect who had brazenly broken through the front door of his home in St. Paul.

Sokol, 49, said his adrenaline was flowing as he crept up the stairs, revolver in hand, from the basement bedroom he shares with his wife.

His wife had been awoken at about 4:45 a.m. Wednesday by their alarm system and initially thought Sokol had -- again -- opened the door to get the newspaper without turning off the alarm. But there he was, sleeping right next to her.

Then she heard footsteps. "I think there's somebody in the house," Sokol recalled her whispering. "I'm thinking to myself, 'Noooo.'"

Sokol said he'd gotten to the second step when he saw somebody cross the room upstairs. "Oh my, there is somebody in our house," he thought.

"I grabbed our gun, which we keep for protection," he said.

"As I stepped around the corner, he hit me ... right between the eyes," Sokol said. "And I fired the gun.

"Down on the ground he went and I insisted, in a not very nice way, that he not move," he said. "I held him at gunpoint until the police arrived."

Michael G. Spencer, 31, of St. Paul, has been charged in Ramsey County District Court with two felony counts of burglary. He has a lengthy criminal record, including convictions for theft and burglary as recently as last year.

According to the criminal complaint, Spencer feigned "unconsciousness, but finally responded ... that he had not been shot" after police arrived at 5 a.m. Wednesday at the Sokols' home in the 1400 block of Carroll Avenue.

Spencer is being held in the Ramsey County jail in lieu of $50,000 bail.

Sokol said the burglar had a knife, but Sokol doesn't know if he was hit by that or a fireplace poker that he noticed had been moved.

He ended up with a small cut on his forehead and a somewhat shattered sense of security. He and his wife dead-bolted themselves in their bedroom Wednesday night, and still he stayed awake all night keeping watch while his wife slept.

The neighborhood has been on guard lately, he said. Two vehicles were vandalized a block from the Sokols' house last week, and on the night of the burglary, two other vehicles were vandalized and a porch was broken into.

Sokol said he doesn't know the defendant and doesn't know why his house was targeted. It's well-lit, he said, and has signs front and back about the alarm system.

"It's a happy ending, I guess," Sokol said. "The good guy's still alive, for the time being. And the bad guy is captured. It turned out like you see in the movies."
Pat Pheifer • 651-298-1551
________________________

Have more than an alarm system. Have a gun and be prepared to use it.

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/

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.

Sean Taylor Died Because He Took A Knife To A Gunfight.

Sean Taylor, the Washington Redskins football player who was gunned down in his home last year, died because he took a knife to a gunfight. The NFL contributed to the circumstances of his death by insisting on a "no guns" policy for NFL players, putting all their people at risk of being unarmed victims.

Sean Taylor, awakened in the middle of the night by the noise of someone breaking into his home, armed himself with a machete to protect himself and his family. His attacker was armed with a firearm, and shot and killed him.

What if Sean Taylor had had a gun? Chances are better than even that he'd still be alive today. But all he had was a large knife, and now he's dead. He never had a chance.

The four young thugs who were bent on robbing Taylor are primarily responsible for his death. But the league is complicit because they foster an attitude of disarmament and submission among their personnel. NFL players have a high profile, are often famous, wealthy, and thanks to the NFL, unarmed and unprotected.

This is only the beginning, folks. There will be much more of this as long as the NFL clings to this insane policy. In an article at Reasononline this league policy and the weak rationale behind it are discussed at length. Read the whole thing.

Should Proprietors of "Gun-Free Zones" Where Shootings Occur Be Shielded From Liability?

This columnist laments the fact that the vast majority of media reports of incidents like these rarely ask why these shootings most often occur in "gun free zones", but he also advocates that those who block peoples rights to self-defense, and therefore their right to life deserve to pay a financial penalty.

From an op-ed column in the Las Vegas Review by Vin Suprynowicz:

Nebraska issues permits "allowing" qualified individuals to carry concealed handguns. (The Second and 14th amendments reaffirm that carrying a weapon is a right, not a privilege -- states have no more legitimate power to require a "permit" for weapons carrying than they have to require a "permit" to attend church or publish a newspaper.)

Leaving aside this "permitting" scheme, Nebraska law allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

...

The question is not whether private property owners have a right to bar firearms on their property -- they do.

...

Rather, the first question here is whether our government agencies are making it fully clear to the managers of buildings otherwise open to the public -- such as Clark County's courthouses and public libraries -- that they will not be shielded from the financial repercussions should employees or customers die under circumstances where they could otherwise have defended themselves and others with their own firearms.

...

If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon, consider advising your loved ones in writing that -- in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun -- you want the proprietor sued personally.

Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn't the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?

It's an interesting column. Read the whole thing.

By the way, I've put up a poll over on the sidebar. If you have an opinion regarding proprietor liability, be sure to vote.

"Gun Owners Are Cowards And Idiots."

The bottom line is this - If you feel that you couldn't live in a major city without a gun, then you live in fear. And there's a word for people who live in fear. The word is "Coward." And Coward + Gun = Dangerous Idiot.

Got that? If you live in a large city, and you have a gun, you must be a coward, and also an idiot. A dangerous idiot.

The tortured logic is astounding.

I read the above comment in a blog called Classical Values. The post was about Barack Obama's recent comment about people in rural Iowa being likely to need guns but city dwellers neither need nor should be allowed to own guns. Most commenters agreed that Mr. Obama was up in the night, except for the very last commenter.

Guns are dangerous and evil. If you live in a large city and own a gun, you must be a coward and a dangerous idiot. I'm still trying to get my head around that.

People, guns don't kill people. Gun control laws kill people by disarming the law abiding public and guaranteeing career criminals a safe work environment.

NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVICE NOT TAKEN

Apparently blog648 is not widely read, at least in Orlando, because people are not taking my advice: "Get a Gun, Not a Taser".

A local station in Orlando ran a story about "Taser parties", which are presumably not unlike "Tupperware parties" of yesteryear.

You can get a Taser, even a pink one, here.

But Popular Mechanics notes: "The C2 [Taser] fires once per cartridge, so Taser recommends putting it down and running like hell while your target twitches away."

Good advice, indeed. But I recommend you grab the bad guy’s gun while he’s twitching, and be ready to use it when he regains his capacity for voluntary motion, because he’s going to be very likely to be in a murderous mood.

Case in point: Recently in Atlanta a man used a Taser on an armed carjacker. But apparently the driver was unwilling to take Taser's advice and "run like hell", presumably because he didn't want to give up his car. So when the infuriated thug regained his faculties, he shot the driver five times.

The problem with tasing an armed thug who's holding a gun is the liklehood that as all the muscles clench involuntarily, he's not likely to drop the gun, and if he has his finger on the trigger, he could start firing the gun uncontrollably, a situation that's dangerous for everyone nearby.

My advice: Don't mess with half-measures like Taser; get a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it on you.

Somebody, I forget who, immortalized the words "not responsible for advice not taken".

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit .

GET A GUN, NOT A TASER

I read a post on Bersa Talk yesterday about a man in Atlanta who was car-jacked by an armed assailant and used a taser to defend himself. The infuriated car-jacker then shot the driver five times.

People, if you don't want to be a victim and choose to arm yourself, arm yourself with a weapon capable of ending an attack, not just making the bad guy really angry.

Police departments don't usually tase aggressive suspects who are armed with a firearm. If he points the gun at an officer or another person, they shoot the suspect, and they don't try to wound or disable, they shoot to neutralize and end the threat. That almost always means they aim for the center of mass, and the suspect is usually seriously wounded or dies from his injuries. Police officers are under no obligation to let armed suspects fire first before returning fire.

Tasers are generally used on agressive suspects who pose a threat but aren't armed with a firearm. Generally there are more than one officer present, and as soon as the suspect falls down after being tased, he is rushed and subdued by multiple officers.

As one commenter at Bersa Talk said, this poor crime victim brought a taser to a gun fight. And he lost.

WEBER STATE U. TEACHING CONCEALED CARRY CLASS

photo by Jack Petersen

This is a target I practiced on right after the Va. Tech shooting. See a related post here.

"It may not be for credit but it’s a credit to Weber State University."–Jeff Soyer, Alphecca.com

I read this story, first on Alphecca, and then on KSL News website, about Weber State University's continuing education class for concealed carry.

From the KSL story:

Guns on campuses [in Utah] are not new. One anonymous teacher has had a permit for 10 years. He says, "My purpose in getting a concealed weapon was, in essence, to become a good citizen."

I couldn’t have said it better myself. In frontier America, good citizens had guns and were ready to defend themselves and their communities. That’s what the Second Amendment is all about.

Jeff Soyer is heartily enthusiastic:

"Nonetheless, the editorial board of Alphecca (that would be me and two cats) all think it’s a swell idea. It doesn’t mean that you can or will stop a tragedy but it does mean you might.

It’s about time a college started teaching about the civil right that dares not speak it’s name. . . ."

My favorite takeaway quote of the KSL story came right at the end:

Utah has issued more than 100,000 concealed weapon permits. That means, whether you like it or not, about one out of every 25 people you meet on the street, in the mall or on campus, could be carrying a gun.

Sounds like good news for peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and bad news for crooks and thugs.

There's a related post here.

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUSPENDED AFTER ADVOCATING LEGALIZED CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS

From the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation."

Freedom of expression and academic freedom are phrases that ring hollow on American college campuses any more, it seems.

Related material here.

GUNFIGHT ON THE BEXAR COUNTY LINE.

They used to say there are no rules in a gunfight. Then somebody, I forget who, said "No, that’s not right. There’s one rule: HAVE A GUN!"

Well, here’s a news story from Bexar County, Texas where two men got into an argument, and one man left in a huff, but soon returned, with a rifle, and started shooting at the other man’s house.

Taking umbrage at the affront, the other man came out of the house and returned fire with a handgun. Now he’s in the hospital in critical condition. The rifleman is still at large. Police expect to make an arrest soon.

Apparently there’s a codicil to the one rule: Have a gun that’s as big as if not bigger than the other guy’s. Hand gun vs. high powered rifle is not exactly an even match-up. The problem is not the size of the hole but the disparity in effective range.

The news report doesn't mention alcohol or drugs being involved in this altercation, but clearly there wasn't a lot of cerebral activity taking place in this incident.

Not a really surprising outcome, really.

Message to Robbery Victims in Richmond, VA: Don't Shoot Back

Here’s a story about a Baskin-Robbins manager who’s facing charges of felony dangerous discharge of a firearm when his store was robbed last month.

Career criminal Jerome Davis, 43, entered the store brandishing a BB gun made to look like a 9mm handgun, demanding all the cash in the till. Manager David Fielding, with his own real hand gun in his waistband, handed over all the money. Then the robber ordered everybody to go to the back of the store with him.

When they reached the rear of the store, Fielding pulled his own gun and opened fire. He shot three times while Davis fled from the store, then followed the robber out into the parking lot and fired eight more times. Davis was later found dead a short distance from his home. No one else was hurt in the incident.

This occurred in a neighborhood in Richmond, VA where armed robberies have been spiraling out of control. The store had been robbed once before in recent months.

It couldn’t be determined if the shot that cause Davis' death was fired inside the store or out. Hence, the charge of reckless dangerous discharge instead of manslaughter. It carries a maximum sentence of 6 years in prison.

The public response to the charge against the store manager has been one of outrage against the prosecuting attorney, Michael Herring. A petition has been circulated in the neighborhood in which nearly 600 signatures have been gathered opposing the indictment.

Mr. Herring has been quoted as saying the petition didn't sway him in his decision to seek an indictment. He didn’t think the trial of the robber should have taken place in the parking lot of the store, but he's willing to accept the decision of the Grand Jury.

He didn’t think the answer to the problem of escalating criminal violence was more guns in the hands of the public. But somehow, disarming the victims seems to be the right thing to do. The man is clearly an elitist.

Message to criminals: Carry a real gun during the commission of your crimes.

Message to armed robbery victims: Don't shoot back, lest you be charged with a felony and face the prospect of serving a long prison sentence.

I think the Grand Jury should do their duty and refuse to return an indictment. This is ridiculous.

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.

Utah Felon Uses Gun to Kill Attacker, Faces Felony Gun Possession Charges

Here's a story in the Salt Lake Tribune about a Hurricane man who justifiably killed a man who attacked him, but did it with a gun that he wasn't entitled to have in his possession--because he's a convicted felon.

Apparently nobody involved in this story can be described as a law abiding citizen; certainly not the attacker, not the victim/shooter, and not even any of the room mates. But the fact remains, this man’s life was in danger, or at least he was in danger of grave bodily injury, which is legal justification for use of deadly force in the state of Utah. So Danny Dutton is alive today because he was in possession of a handgun and was willing to use it to defend himself. He’s in danger of going to prison for a very long time, not because he used a gun to kill someone, but because he had a gun. The crime he committed was possession of the gun. The reason possession of a gun is a crime for Danny Dutton, but not for me, is because Danny Dutton has a prior felony conviction, and I don’t. The conviction, by the way, is for cultivation of marijuana, not exactly a violent crime.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know all the nuances that go with a case like this. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that one of Danny’s room mates was a law abiding citizen and legally owned a gun or guns and kept them in the house where they were accessible. Danny’s attacker breaks into the house and starts beating him and breaks his arm in the process, and continues to pound away at him with this blunt instrument. Danny retreats to the kitchen where he sees the gun on top of the fridge or behind the cookie jar or whatever, grabs it and dispatches his attacker. In this scenario, does Danny have a legal problem with felony possession of a firearm?

I think so, because technically, even though it wasn’t Danny’s gun, and he didn’t own the gun, when Danny picked up the gun, it came into his possession. As soon as Danny picked up the gun, he committed another felony, because he was then a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That seems to be the approach that prosecutors are taking in this case.

So, in order for convicted felon Danny Dutton to stay alive, he had to commit another felony to defend himself. There’s something wrong here.

Do convicted felons have reasonable expectations to be able to defend themselves if their lives are in danger when they’re not committing a crime? If not, why not? The Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn’t go on to say "unless you’re a convicted felon." That’s something that individual states tacked on later.

I think the State Legislature needs to revisit the law, and stipulate that even a convicted felon who is not committing any other crime, has the same right as any other law abiding citizen to defend himself in a deadly situation.

Washington Woman Mauled by Black Bear...

...but she may have had it coming. By that I mean she kind of brought in on herself.

Here’s a link to the story in the Kitsap Reporter. It’s an unintentionally hilarious story, really, about a couple in Kitsap, Washington who had trouble with a 300 pound black bear and handled it, um, badly.

In an attempt to try and scare the more than 300-pound black bear after spotting it on her property last Wednesday morning, the woman, a retired Navy doctor and volunteer Search and Rescue worker who wishes to remain unnamed, shot off her .30-06-caliber rifle, hitting the bear.

Okay, let me get this straight. She tried to scare the bear by shooting her rifle and hit the bear when she did. I assume, since she only wanted to scare the bear, she was aiming to miss it. And she missed. By hitting the bear.

I’m sorry, but my B.S. meter is blaring.

I can believe this woman is a bad shot. I just can’t believe she’s that bad. If you’re aiming to miss a dangerous creature like a 300 pound black bear, aim for someplace other than the bear, for crying out loud. No wonder she "wishes to remain unnamed".

I guess frightened people can do incredible things. And in this case, I do mean incredible! I’m not normally a suspicious-natured person. But this story, um, smells funny.

If she actually tried to kill the bear and didn’t get it done with the first shot, that’s much more plausible. Many hunters have botched one-shot kills, including myself. It’s not something to be proud of, but it happens. Maybe it’s illegal to kill a marauding black bear on your property in Washington state. I don’t know.

But okay, let’s take her at her word and agree that she’s a dangerously inaccurate shooter. I still have some questions.

Why didn’t the husband take the shot?

Why did he let her go first when they went looking for the now clearly dangerous wounded bear? Did he know something she didn’t? I love this quote from the story: "The bear was taller than I was," her husband said. "He was hiding in the brush ... then I heard movement and started walking behind her." Clearly a very clever man. Not necessarily a brave man, but a smart man, nonetheless.

Why did he wait until the bear had his wife’s head in its mouth before shooting it? The story says "[n]ot missing a beat, her husband shot five rounds into the bear." From a .460 Magnum handgun. But obviously, he missed a beat or two.

And the recoil of the gun was so violent it nearly severed his thumb? That’s way too much recoil. The .460 Magnum is an elephant-rifle cartridge, fully capable of taking down a 300 lb. black bear. But apparently, it’s fully capable of taking down the shooter, too. Somebody needs to rethink their choice of handgun caliber. I think some gun merchant motivated by cash flow rather than scruples saw this couple coming when they came into the gun store and sold them some very expensive guns and ammo when they had no idea what they were buying. The .30-06 is probably the most common hunting rifle in North America, but it's not a cheap gun. The .460 Magnum is exotic and expensive. Ammo for the .460 Magnum is $4.50 to $6.00 per cartridge.

Clearly this couple is a pair of babes in the woods and they have no business living in black bear country. But I don’t know. They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But does it make you smarter, too?

Have a nice day.

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?

Practicing For a Day I Hope Never Comes

The day after the Virginia Tech shootings I went to the range and, for the first time in my life, bought a "human" target, a police training "thug" target like the one pictured. After practicing on regular pistol targets, I "qualified" by firing 50 rounds. I used magazines with 10 rounds each, and did all double-taps at about 21 ft. I had 13 misses, mostly "hits" outside the gray scoring area. Two or three were outside the target area, but still on the paper. I assume all the misses were the second shot from double-taps. A "double-tap", by the way, is two shots fired in quick succession, followed by a momentary pause to assess the effect, if any, on the target. A week or so later I went back, got another "thug" target, and "requalified", this time with 50 rounds fired at about one-second intervals, no double-taps. The picture is of that target. I had one miss that was on the target but outside the scoring area. My intention is to go back at least on a monthly basis and try to get better with double-taps.

Prior to the shootings at Trolley Square in Salt Lake, I’m sure a lot of people in Utah were comfortable with the assumption that something like that couldn’t happen here. The week after the Trolley Square massacre applications for concealed firearm permits quadrupled at the Utah BCI.

I hope and pray the day never comes when I’m faced with a situation like the students and faculty were at Virginia Tech or the shoppers at Trolley Square. I can’t say with absolute certainty that I’m totally prepared to take a human life in defense of myself or loved ones, but on the other hand, I’m never going to be ready to crawl under a table and beg for my life.

How about you?