Sunday, September 30, 2007
Gun range accident: Cop kills fellow officer
September 30, 2007
BY TOM WYATT Post-Tribune
A Gary auxiliary police officer was killed Saturday afternoon when a fellow volunteer officer's gun accidentally discharged a bullet into the man's chest. (How the hell does this happen? -Yuri)
Kevin Weaver, 49, died at St. Margaret Mercy Hospital in Dyer. He and two other reserve officers were training at Deb's Gun Range in Hammond, Hammond Police Chief Brian Miller said.
About 3 p.m., Gary police said Reserve Officer Gerald Horton, 52, was attempting to clear his weapon when Weaver accidentally bumped into Horton, causing Horton's gun to fire a .45-caliber round. (Again, how does this happen? -Yuri)
'A real tragedy' for Gary
"He was a good officer, a veteran, and a good man," Terry Smith, head of Gary's auxiliary police program, said of Weaver, a Merrillville resident who leaves behind a wife and three children.
Gary Mayor Rudy Clay, who returned from Washington, D.C., on Saturday afternoon, learned of the shooting after exiting his airplane at Midway Airport.
"This is just a real tragedy here," Clay said.
"He was a good man and did some good deeds for a lot of people. His good deeds will live forever."
Weaver, a reservist since 1990, was a longtime custodian for the Gary School Corp. and owned a cleaning company.
"He was a hardworking man," Gary police Cmdr. Samuel Roberts said.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The match was held in three rounds of ten shots each, plus as many sighters as we wanted. The first target I got five shots in the black circles and kept improving until the third and final target I had most of them in the black. At that point though it was over and my score reflected the low scoring targets. I'm not whining, don't get me wrong. My misses seemed to hover around the two inch mark, which is fine for small game, but bad for paper. ;-)
Oh well, I had fun. Winning would have been great, but that's not why I shoot matches. In fact, if I'm not having fun shooting, I can't see much point in it.
I'm thinking perhaps if I switched to a caliber with a little more "umph" behind it I might fare a little better. My suspicion is that the wind may have been playing havoc with my POI. *shrug* Well, I have some time to think about it until the next match.
One thought I had was perhaps scoping one of my milsurp rifles like my Mosin Nagant M91/30, or perhaps saving up the cash and getting an AR-15. The problem with that though is I'm not a rich guy and saving up that kind of money is hard for me to do.
Anyway, I'll think of something!
Wish me luck!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Here's my response to her, in case it disappears, as happens most of the time on hopolophobic's websites.
"I own several guns. I practice safe gun handling and have never killed anyone, let alone shot anything living. I have a permit and carry a concealed weapon all the time. I lock up my guns in a safe and teach my children gun safety. My son has a cap gun which he treats as if it were real, i.e. not pointing it at people. He must ask to touch any of my guns and is supervised while doing so.
So, are you going to call me a bad parent too?
I happen to agree that it was irresponsible to allow their child to point a toy gun at people, but I feel you're way overreacting.
Also, calling real cops with real guns in to deal with a child holding a toy is the height of irresponsibility. Are you, nuts?
Just the other day, some hopolophobic idiot on a freeway in Florida called the cops because the car beside her had a child playing with a toy gun. The cops tracked down the license plate number and early the next morning they busted down the door and stormed the house. In the resulting confusion it would have been easy for a cop with an itchy trigger finger to have made a mistake and killed someone. Just because some idiot let their irrational fear get the better of them.
In this world, there are three classes of people, Wolves, Sheep and Sheepdogs. Which one are you? As for me, I choose to be a sheepdog. Everyone is responsible for their own safety.
Because when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. Remember that."
Thanks to Ride Fast & Shoot Straight for the link and Robb Allen for the icon.
Bill, bogged down by funding concerns, aims to improve background checks
WASHINGTON - A bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings is bogged down by objections over funding and who should be barred from buying a firearm.
The bill would tighten requirements for states to share gun purchasers’ mental health information with the federal government.
Majority Democrats in the Senate were poised as early as this past Monday to bring the bill to a vote until Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected.
Coburn says he has concerns that billions of dollars of new spending in the bill is not paid for by cuts in other programs. And he says the bill does not pay for appeals by veterans or other Americans who feel they have been wrongly barred from buying a gun.
“As Congress prepares to raise the debt limit once again, it is not too much to ask politicians to do the job they were elected to do and make choices,” Coburn said Wednesday. “Veterans, or any other American, should not lose their Second Amendment rights if they have been unfairly tagged as having mental health concerns.”
Propelled by a rare alliance between the National Rifle Association and majority Democrats, the legislation was passed in similar form by the House and would be the first major gun control law in more than a decade.
“Nothing can bring back the lives tragically lost at Virginia Tech, but this amendment will begin to repair and restore our faith in the (national background check) system and help prevent similar tragedies in the future,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who is sponsoring the bill with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
“When the NRA and Chuck Schumer agree, that tells you it’s something worth doing,” Schumer said. (Yeah, right... -Yuri)
Mental health gap in gun law?
The legislation aims to fix flaws in the national background check system that allowed Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally ill Virginia Tech student, to buy guns and kill 32 people April 16 in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used in the rampage. However, the commonwealth of Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system.
The legislation clarifies what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and gives states financial incentives for compliance.
The Senate version of the bill is very similar to the House version, with a few changes.
The Senate authorizes up to $400 million a year over five years in new grant funding for improvements to the information technology and state compliance programs, an increase over the House version’s $250 million a year over three years. The Senate version would begin appropriations in 2009, rather than 2008 as in the House-passed version.
It also gives the attorney general discretion to penalize states beginning after three years if they do not meet compliance targets.
Oddly, the price on the Federal Premium Gold Medal Target .22lr was still the same, $3.50 per box of 50 rounds. I tried to get a case of it (5% discount that way), but there were out, so I settled for the last eight boxes they had on the shelf. That together with the three (and change) boxes I had stored in the ammo locker made a full case plus.
It's not that I'm hurting for .22lr, really, it's just that my rifle is sighted in for this ammo and I've had good, consistent results at 100 yards with it. Plus, my gun doesn't like the Remington ammo, and the CCI Blazer .22lr I have is inconsistent. In other words, "Stick with what works" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Oh, and this is what I'll be shooting the Federal target ammo out of this Saturday:
Sweet huh? It started out life as a Wal-mart special, Ruger 10/22 with the 22" stainless barrel. It's been modified with an Adams & Bennett target BBL, Fajen thumb hole stock, a complete Volquartsen trigger group (including recoil buffer) and a Bushnell 3-9x42 scope. If I do my part, it'll group under an inch at 100 yards, with groups at 50 yards well under a quarter. With the factory barrel I was lucky to get "minute of paper plate" at 100 yards. As it is, the rifle is much more accurate than I am at this point.
I'm so glad I have some ammo stored up, but there are other calibers I need. Looks like I'll be placing an order with one of the online ammo companies come payday. Let's face it, if ammo prices keep going up, I'd better get what I can afford before they go any higher.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Made in 1938 at the Izhevsk Arsenal, it still shoots as good as when it was new. It's perfectly suited for dispatching Nazi's and Tyrant's of every stripe, then and now.
I urge everyone to visit the following two sites:
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
"The People of the Gun are beating their drums on websites from Keepandbeararms.com in Washington State, to alphecca.com in Vermont. Every time a plea for gun restrictions surfaces on the Internet, the gun stalwarts furiously post hundreds of missives in homage to the Second Amendment.Just to set the record straight, I do this because I want to, not because the NRA or anyone else is paying me. Now, if someone were willing to pay me to do this, I wouldn't turn them down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a rich man after all.
Through organizing, the Internet, and plunking down plenty of cold hard cash, the gun lobby has proven it is ready for primetime. Meanwhile, its opponents are languishing in the wee-hours of late-night local cable."
The problem with the anti's is they've been sucking at George Soros's teat for so long, they think that's how everyone else does it. They cannot grasp a true "Grassroots" effort put together by concerned citizens of their own volition, banding together to halt the destruction of their civil rights.
The good news is that we're winning and they know it. And this is what has them so panicked. Keep up the good work guys (I mean that in the generic sense)!
Monday, September 24, 2007
This got me to thinking. There are several instance that I am aware of, and perhaps more that I'm not, of JBT's harassing a law abiding gun owner, or FFL. What I'm advocating is wherever possible, carry an audio or better yet, video recorder on your person (or on your partner's person), so you can document the abuse for all the world to see. There's a reason the ATF agents at Red's Trading Post don't want anyone to film them.
You see, cameras and recording devices are like Kryptonite is to Superman, or sunlight is to vampires, for JBT's. Have you ever turned on the kitchen light at night, in certain parts of the country? If you have, you know what I'm talking about.
The time of laying back and taking it are over. This isn't an all out civil war, but it is war just the same. There are people in this country, in and out of government, who want to take away your second amendment rights. Over 80% of the FFL's in our country are gone now, and more are closing up shop everyday. Don't for a second believe that this is an accident.
Call your Senators and Congressmen and urge them to vote pro-rights. Vote in every election and vote for the candidate that will best support your rights. Oppose EVERY and ANY anti-rights bill, no matter how small. Give no compromise, because we will get none from those who would take away our rights. Document the abuses of government and share them with the world. Shine the light on them so they cannot hide.
It is only together, no matter what you use your firearm for, that we can keep our rights intact and pass them on to our children and grandchildren.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Chief's letter, more training follow officer's confusion, threat of arrest
“When I told him that I hadn’t done anything, he said he’d find a reason to put me in jail,” said Putnam, 24, who works with guns every day as vice president of Coal Creek Armory in West Knoxville.
“It’s not that I have a problem with police officers. I deal with police officers nationwide from Arizona to Maine every day. But I lost my confidence in a legal right that I knew I had.”
Knoxville police officers will get a refresher course on the state’s gun permit laws after an officer who didn’t know the law stopped, frisked and threatened to arrest Putnam for legally carrying a gun inside a Wal-Mart this summer.
Officer Glenn Todd Greene’s actions June 21 at the store on Walbrook Drive in West Knoxville earned him a written reprimand and remedial training for rudeness and not knowing the law, Internal Affairs records show. He’s worked for the Knoxville Police Department for about seven years.
Putnam got a written apology from Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV.
“The officer was wrong I want to personally apologize to you for any embarrassment or inconvenience you may have suffered as a result of this incident,” the chief wrote.
“The Knoxville Police Department takes pride in the training offered to its officers, and the training provided far exceeds state requirements. Unfortunately, officers aren’t perfect, and sometimes mistakes are made. As you can see from the remedial measures taken, we want to learn from our mistakes so they won’t be repeated in the future.”
The trouble started when Putnam and his girlfriend, Samantha Williams, stopped at the store to buy groceries around 10 p.m. Putnam, who holds a gun permit, carried his Colt handgun inside with him, holstered on his right hip.
“It’s like a seat belt or a fire extinguisher,” he said. “It goes everywhere with me. It was warm that night, so I left my jacket in the car.”
State law allows gun permit holders to carry their guns openly or concealed. Putnam said he usually tucks his shirt over the gun but forgot to that night.
As they walked out, Greene, who’d gone to the store to investigate a shoplifting call, told Putnam to stop. Greene asked for Putnam’s identification, grabbed his arm when he reached for his wallet and then asked why he carried a gun in public, records show.
Putnam ended up against a concrete wall being frisked as Greene took his gun.
“It’s called a concealed carry permit. State law says you carry it concealed, not in plain view (with the) hammer back,” Greene said. “I’ve been doing this for 12 years. I can put you in jail for something. It’s called inducing a panic.”
Greene ultimately let Putnam go after talking with another officer but told him to pull his shirt over the gun. He told Internal Affairs investigators he thought Tennessee and Ohio, where he previously served as a police officer, prohibited open carrying. Neither state does.
“There’s an issue there where there could be panic,” he said in a recorded statement. “I’m thinking the law is a concealed law. I’m not going to deal with a guy that has a loaded gun until I secure a weapon.”
Greene said he asked other officers about the law and that they didn’t know, either.
Investigators reviewed video from Greene’s in-car camera and found him in violation of KPD policy. They sustained part of Putnam’s complaint but ruled Greene hadn’t used excessive force in putting him against the wall.
Putnam questions that decision.
“On the one hand, I’m glad they didn’t ignore it,” he said. “On the other, I don’t feel it was a wholly appropriate response to everything the officer threatened to do.”
The department trains all recruits on the state’s gun permit laws, said KPD Lt. Jeff Stiles, who oversees training for the department. All officers will get another dose of training during the next annual session, he said.
“We don’t get that many questions about it over here,” Stiles said. “But we cover that aspect. We go straight to the experts to teach the law. We don’t guess, and we don’t speculate.”
Matt Lakin may be reached at 865-342-6306.
1 stuck in the chamber, which I cleared by pushing a chamber flag down from the muzzle.
1 jammed beneath the feed ramp, requiring a pair of pliers to clear.
3 duds, one of which cost me the match.
I had one get stuck "hard" in the chamber last month and a dud or two as well. The same type of thing happened the month before too.
I've had it! I'm switching back to Federal!
Remington makes some good products, but apparently quality .22lr is not their forte.
Friday, September 21, 2007
The Medford School District teacher, known as Jane Doe in court papers, wants an exception to the district's policy against guns on school property so she can carry her Glock 9-mm. The answer forthcoming from a Jackson County Court judge ought to be a resounding no. The teacher's fear of her ex-spouse deserves a compassionate response — one that doesn't lead to pistol-packin' teachers.
The school could beef up security. Or the teacher could be given a paid leave while sorting out her personal problems. The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.
There are solutions that don't require a gun in the classroom. The teacher has a concealed-carry permit but that doesn't give her the right to bring a gun to class.
If teachers fearful for their safety can carry guns, what about other school employees, or students fearful of the playground bully? Exceptions could create a school climate that is dangerous and distracts from education.
The 1994 federal Gun-Free Schools Act is threatened by cases such as the one in Oregon. The Christian Science Monitor reports the Michigan and Ohio legislatures have pending bills permitting school employees to carry concealed weapons on school grounds, while others have considered the possibility.
Washington state law prohibits anyone other than law-enforcement personnel from possessing weapons on school premises, school-provided transportation or any facility exclusively used by public or private schools. Legislative efforts led by Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, would remove legal ambiguity by defining what is considered a weapon and making possession of one a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor.
Oregon's Jane Doe may fear she's in harm's way. But taking a gun into her classroom puts students in the same predicament.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
All sales, even private ones, should be licensed, group says
By SCOTT GUTIERREZ
The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report Wednesday that calls for stronger gun laws and urges law enforcement agencies to better educate the public about gun violence and to form more partnerships with public health officials in preventing firearms-related deaths.
The organization, which includes police executives from around the country, made 39 recommendations in the report, intended as a guide in countering a rise nationwide in gun violence over the past two years.
The report also implores states to consider enacting legislation that would close the "gun show loophole," a term referring to transactions between private sellers, which allow buyers to avoid mandatory background screenings required by federally licensed gun dealers.
Mayor Greg Nickels and police Chief Gil Kerlikowske have campaigned heavily in favor of such legislation, which has repeatedly failed in the Legislature.
Many of the report's strongest recommendations to local jurisdictions already are in place in Seattle and King County, including policies requiring officers to seize firearms from domestic violence offenders and ensuring officers submit data from all guns recovered on the streets into a federal database.
The report spawned from a summit earlier this year in Chicago, where law enforcement officials, prosecutors and researchers, mostly from the Midwest, met to address gun violence in that region. The Joyce Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to reducing poverty and crime in the Great Lakes region, co-sponsored the event.
"The idea is that it really should be a multifaceted approach. It's not just a police issue. It's a public health issue, it's a youth issue and our schools are involved," said Bob Scales, a Seattle policy analyst who attended on behalf of the city.
"We've got to do a lot of things. It's not enough to say that if we close the gun-show loophole, that's going to solve an 'X' amount of gun incidents."
The wide-ranging report urges state and local governments to strengthen laws barring access to guns for domestic violence offenders, including those convicted of misdemeanors, and the mentally ill. It also suggests that local and state officials consider safety regulations on gun storage and require owners to file a police report if their weapons are stolen.
In Seattle and King County, police seize weapons on domestic-violence arrests and when court protection orders are served, Kerlikowske said. Police also have recorded trace data on all recovered firearms since 2001. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives opened a regional crime gun center in Seattle last year to analyze trends in regional weapons trafficking.
A representative from the Washington-based Concerned Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said Wednesday he'd not yet read the report. But the gun-control legislation proposed in the report has been intensely opposed by Second Amendment advocacy organizations.
Gun-rights supporters point to studies that show only 1 percent of firearms bought at gun shows are linked to crimes.
Kerlikowske said the most critical issue is that all private gun sales are licensed. Without records of such sales, it's impossible to say how many people illegally obtained firearms when a licensed dealer would have denied them, he said.
"I think there should be a lot of concern," he said. "I'm glad the IACP did this."
The report also advocates for more funding for thorough public health studies of gun violence and urges state and local officials to improve education about gun-related suicides and safe gun ownership.
It notes that 30,000 people die gun-related deaths each year, many from suicide or accidental shootings. The King County Medical Examiner's Office investigated 146 gun-related deaths in 2005, the most current data available. Of those, 32 percent were homicides. All but two of the remaining cases were ruled suicides.
"The IACP report lays out the need for us to adjust our way of thinking about gun violence," said Kristen Comer, executive director of Washington Ceasefire, a gun-control advocacy group. "We must do more to educate the public, especially our young people, about the dangers of gun violence."
Apparently if you have enough money you can buy off anyone, and they'll even let you write your "gun summit" report for them. Damn, too bad they NRA didn't seize this opportunity... (yes, I'm joking! -Yuri)
Full story at Of Arms and the Law.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
“It ran right over the top of me after the dog,” Lee said.
According to Lee, the pit bull attacked and quickly killed her small dog while she scrambled to get her husky puppies rounded up and locked into a bathroom.
“I was screaming my head off,” Lee said.Lee told KIRO 7 Eyewitness New she ran to the back of her home to the family’s gun safe looking for protection.
VIDEO: Pit Bull Attacks, Kills Small Dog
“By the time I got to the guns, the dog had blocked me in and I realized the bullets were not in the guns,” Lee said.
Lee then called her mother who was in Oregon at the time.
“She’s screaming, she’s terrified,” Lee’s mother said after replaying the voice mail Lee left on her phone.
One of Lee’s friends knocked on the door as Lee was cornered and distracted the dog so Lee could escape through a window.
“She could have been mauled. She’d be dead. There’s no way she could fight off a pit bull ,” Lee’s mother said.
According to Lee’s family, the pit bull left bite marks on the hardwood floor where it attacked the shih tzu and destroyed part of a new video game console.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Timothy Miller and Lena Jantoc pleaded for leniency for their son Jordan Jantoc almost a year after another son, Michael "Mikey" Miller, was accidentally shot and killed in the basement of their Burien home.
"We are overwhelmed every day. We feel it every day when we look at Jordan," Lena Jantoc sobbed. "Punishing Jordan will never ease the pain of losing Michael."
The family's pastor, a school principal and tearful relatives all urged Superior Court Judge Harry McCarthy to not send Jordan, 16, to prison as recommended by prosecutors. The judge agreed.
"I think this is a case where justice needs to be tempered with mercy," McCarthy said before he sentenced Jordan to 24 months of home detention, followed by probation when he will be required to give speeches on gun control.
"This is an extraordinary case to say the least," McCarthy said. "It has resulted in a real tragedy for the family."
Jordan cried throughout much of the court hearing and apologized repeatedly to his family for the pain he has caused them.
"I take full responsibility for what I did," he said. "He was my brother. We did everything together."
On Sept. 21, 2006, the two boys were in the basement of the family home when Jordan pulled a silver .380-caliber handgun from underneath his mattress to show his stepbrother. King County sheriff's deputies said Jordan had obtained the weapon by trading a 9-mm Glock that he'd stolen from his stepfather.
The two were examining the weapon when it went off, a bullet lodging in Mikey's collarbone.
"The gun was not aimed at Mikey," defense attorney Matthew King said.
Deputy Prosecutor Don Raz told the judge that he and Jordan's family had agreed that the teen should serve a significantly reduced sentence. Jordan had pleaded guilty in July to first-degree manslaughter, which carries a penalty of up to eight years in prison.
But Raz said Jordan should face incarceration for such a "serious violent crime" in addition to the 353 days of electronic detention he has served. McCarthy disagreed, though, and said justice "has to sometimes be tailored for each person."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
More info on Houssein Zorkot on here.
Man held on $1M bond after he was found with AK-47
Darren A. Nichols / The Detroit News
DEARBORN -- A 26-year-old man is being held on $1 million cash bond on gun charges after he was found leaving a city park Sept. 8 with an AK-47.
Houssein Zorkot was arraigned Tuesday before 19th District Judge Mark Somers on two felony charges in the incident at Hemlock Park.
Dearborn police responded to a call that there was a man in the park carrying a gun. Police stopped Zorkot's sport utility vehicle as he was leaving the park. He was wearing dark clothes that could camouflage him at night.
After his arrest, police sought a warrant at the man's home, where they seized a laptop computer and several pictures. No other guns were found in the house.
The man also had visited Lebanon within the past month, police said.
Bond was set at the unusually high rate because it was unclear whether he was dangerous, Mayor John "Jack" O'Reilly said. The gun was purchased the night before in a nearby suburban community, O'Reilly said.
"The bond was set because of the nature of this," O'Reilly said. "We can't be sure he might not be a threat. We really don't have enough information to know what his intent was. The indication is he better not be released right now until we know what he is up to."
He was charged with one court of carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, a five-year felony and a two-year felony firearm charge. He also was charged with possessing a loaded firearm in a vehicle, a two-year misdemeanor.
Dearborn police have called in the FBI to help with the case. FBI spokesperson Dawn Clenney confirmed they had been contacted about the case, but declined to discuss the issue any further.
"We are aware of the situation. It's their situation," Clenney said. "Beyond that it would be inappropriate to comment."
A preliminary hearing is set for Oct. 21.
O'Reilly said although the man had recently visited Lebanon, he was cautious to indicate there was a larger terrorism issue brewing so close to the Sept. 11 anniversary.
"I really wanted not to let it become more of a bigger issue to be played out," O'Reilly said. "The real story will come out when he is bound over."
You can reach Darren A. Nichols at (734) 462-2190 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Eh? What's that? They'll just find another weapon?
Balderdash I tell ya!
Deadly Sword Attack in South Philly
SOUTH PHILADELPHIA - September 10, 2007 - Veteran homicide investigators describe the scene as one of the goriest crimes they have ever seen.
The hunt continues for the two men who attacked the victim with what authorities described as a two-foot long ceremonial sword. It appears they too may have been injured in the vicious attack.
Authorities removed the victim's body from his apartment at 1432 West Porter Street on Monday night. Twenty-year-old Anthony DiMattio appeared to have been stabbed at least five times in the head and torso during an apparent robbery. One of the murder weapons was a two foot ceremonial sword the victim had hanging on his wall. The sword was tossed in a trashcan in front of the apartment when the killers fled the scene. The victim's uncle, Mike Russo, was on his way to the apartment to visit his nephew when he saw two men running down the block.
At the time, Russo had no idea the men were running from his nephew's apartment.
"I didn't connect it until I seen the door open and I ran up and seen the blood in the kitchen. I ran back down screaming for somebody to call the police," he said.
Investigators said there was blood everywhere. It appeared that DiMattio had put up a fight, and his pet dog, Dutchie, may also have been trying to fight off the attackers.
"One had a bloody head that was gushing blood and the other one was pretty much bloodied up himself," said Russo. "The one kid did get bit by the dog that was up there."
The men were seen fleeing the home with a black duffel bag. The murder left the neighborhood extremely shaken.
"It's terrible. It's real terrible. We're really all shocked about it cause this is a real nice quiet neighborhood," said Joe Accardo.
For his part, Russo said his nephew did not deserve to die in the horrible way he did.
"We need to get these two people off the street now before they do it to someone else. And people need to stand up. People need to come together. Not only because it's my nephew, but people need to come together because it's getting out of hand," said Russo.
The two assailants are described as two black men about 19 to 22 years of age. One stands five-foot-four, while the other is five-foot-seven. One wore dungaree shorts and white t shirt, while the other had dungaree shorts and red shirt.
Anyone with information on their whereabouts is being asked to call the homicide division of the Philadelphia Police.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
It's been six years now, and the sociopath responsible is still alive. I would personally end his miserable existence if given the opportunity, but let's face it, that's not likely to happen.
In the meantime, others with the same psychopathic hatred and disregard for human life run about doing his bidding. Yet in the face of this, there are some who would still have us disarmed in the face of death. Never mind the everyday threat to life and property from the criminal element, we have these nuts to worry about too. ...and still they stick their heads in the sand and pretend they can't hear reason.
We're in for a long fight ladies and gentlemen, and it's not going to end unless we're victorious, or we surrender and convert. Funny how the same people who want to disarm me are the same people fighting for our destruction, praying for a defeat to suit their political goals.
Anyway... This will be the last post today. I'm going to take my kids out to the park while it's still warm and sunny. Perhaps things will start to look better.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided
Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?
The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.
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).
America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.
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.
We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.
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.
Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen
Thanks to Alphecca.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Criminals laugh at gun laws, plain and simple. They routinely break the law as it is, so why should they care about one more? The criminals will be armed, that is a fact. Even in the "gun free Utopia" of England and Australia, criminals seem to have an inexhaustible supply of firearms available to them. It's no surprise to me and others like me that the violent crime level went up shortly after the law abiding citizens were forcibly disarmed.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims. In an interview with John Stossel, which was broadcast on nation wide TV, inmates openly admitted they chose victims who they thought would be unarmed. They admitted liking gun control laws because it made their job easier, and boasted how easy it was for them to get a gun if they wanted to. Criminals don't buy their guns at the local Wal-mart or gun store, and as a result, they don't have to pass a background check; it's simply 'cash & carry' for them.
So as the anti-rights groups keep pounding away at our second amendment freedoms, all they are doing is empowering the criminal element. Is this really what they want to do? Probably not, but it makes you wonder. I'm sure there are some wonderful, but misguided people who are anti-gun. The problem is, they are so invested in their beliefs that no amount of "Reasoned Discourse" will ever change their minds. When someone presents facts that disprove their closely cherished world view, they just stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalalala - I can't hear you!" Case in point, Paul Helmke and Robyn Ringler. They couldn't take the heat, so they closed comments on their blogs. This does nothing to stop people with facts from disagreeing with them, but it means they don't have to hear it.
I will never delete a comment just because the commenter disagrees with me, but I will not stand for personal attacks or rudeness. Luckily I've been troll free to this point, but just in case, that is my policy.
In Sarah Brady's Utopian fantasy, guns have been banned, pure and simple. If she and her cohorts were honest with the American public they would admit this. And in this Utopian future, while you and I are disarmed and left to our own devices, the criminals will still have their weapons... Like sheep to the slaughter. Like I said before...
Criminals prefer unarmed victims!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Honestly, this isn't a big loss as she has been deleting comments from people who had facts to refute her mostly emotional pleas. If she did let a comment get through, it was invariably from someone who couldn't control them self, with the intention of painting the pro-civil rights commenter's in a bad light. This in addition of allowing people who agreed with her to flame those who didn't and then deleting the comments the person would make in their defense. There was never any real attempt on her part to openly discuss the issues.
Seriously though, we can still comment on her disinformation on our blogs and it'll automatically be linked to her blog and name, guaranteeing a search engine hit refuting her misinformation.
So long Robyn, it was fun while it lasted, even though you never did let many pro-gun comments get though.
I gifted her with a free range trip for her birthday, and to my surprise she accepted. Previously, she has been ambivalent to against guns.
After giving her safety and technical instruction, we left for the range. At the range we went back over the technical aspects (she read the range safety rules on arrival) and I set her up with my Ruger 22/45 with the Red Dot on it. I did let her shoot my Ruger GP100 with light .357 Magnum loads in it, but she didn't really like the extra recoil compared to the 22/45. To her credit though, she did shoot all six shots.
We went through over 300 rounds of .22lr and I shot about 50 rounds of .357 Magnum while I was there. I would have shot more, but I was busy loading magazines for her.
After we were done and on the way home she told me she had had a great time, and would like to do it again. She even called her husband and told him about it and he wants to come down next time and go to the range with me too. :-)
Guys, take your friends and family to the range and let them shoot, they'll have a blast and come away from the experience with a different attitude toward shooting and guns.