Friday, February 29, 2008
"When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.
The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the 2nd Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.
Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the 2nd Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges."
Read the rest here.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Anyone who tells you there isn't a double standard for Cops is lying. If I had done what he did, I'd be in jail right now...and so should he.
Cop, butcher in clear after dispute
Thursday, February 28, 2008
By Stephanie Rice, Columbian staff writer
The Great Meat Fight of 2007 has been declared a draw.
Criminal charges will not be filed against Vancouver Police Officer Roger Evans or Top Choice Meats owner Mike Brannan, a special prosecutor said Wednesday.
The Dec. 21 altercation started when Evans, who went to the Orchards shop to pick up a venison order while off duty, became upset that market employees failed to add pepper flakes to his venison jerky.
According to witnesses, Evans and Brannan had a lengthy, heated exchange that ended with Evans drawing his gun, customers ducking for cover and a flurry of calls to 911.
Clark County Sheriff’s Detective Rick Buckner, who investigated the incident, found no fault with Evans. He recommended misdemeanor assault charges against Brannan based on Evans’ claim that the butcher shoved a heavy box of venison at the police officer’s chest outside the store.
The Vancouver city attorney prosecutes misdemeanors within city limits, but Charles Isely and James Senescu, a former assistant city attorney and a former deputy county prosecutor, respectively, were asked to review the case to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest since a police officer was involved.
Isely said there was a lack of credible and consistent evidence to support any criminal charges.
Therese Lavallee, Brannan’s attorney, received the special prosecutors’ report and said no witnesses corroborated Evans’ claim that Brannan shoved the box at him.
Witnesses did, however, say that Evans drew his weapon without provocation.
That could support a charge of second-degree assault with a firearm, prosecutors said in their report, but they declined to file such a charge because they said Evans could argue self-defense.
Evans has said he pulled his weapon because he feared Brannan was going to pull one out first.
The prosecutors reasoned that, as a police officer, Evans has a heightened sense about predicting what a person is going to do, Lavallee said.
But what about his SWAT training on how to defuse a situation? Lavallee asked.
“There’s no justification I can see to pull a loaded gun,” she said.
Lavallee said Evans should be charged.
“It should go to a jury. That’s what our system is for,” she said.
Any other person who pulled a gun on a store owner would have been arrested, Lavallee and Brannan said.
“He’s a city official. They’re just covering up to protect him,” Brannan said. “I’m just a citizen.”
Attorney Tom Phelan spoke on Evans’ behalf Wednesday but said he couldn’t discuss the situation because of a pending internal affairs investigation.
Evans, who remains on administrative duty, is a respected SWAT and K-9 officer. Evans also made the news last year when his German shepherd partner, Dakota, was shot and killed by a suspect in Brush Prairie.
When Evans drew his weapon Dec. 21, Brannan said he was dumbfounded.
“I’ve never had a gun pointed at me. Hey, it’s pretty scary.”
He and his wife, Patti, have lost sleep over the situation.
During Buckner’s investigation, a few people came forward and described Brannan as a hothead.
“None of them were there,” Brannan said.
Besides, “if I was a mean, rude person you would not want to come and buy meat from me, and I’ve been there seven years.”
He said his customers have teased him about the meat fight, either coming in with their hands up saying, “Hey, Mike, I don’t have a gun,” or inspecting their order and pretending to be upset about missing pepper flake.
But he hasn’t found too much to laugh about.
He said he has tried to conceal his stress at work.
“Like our sign says, ‘Customer service with a smile,’ ” Brannan said.
Stephanie Rice can be contacted at 360-735-4549 or email@example.com.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Deputy Chief Terry Gallagher said the woman's two daughters ran upstairs and called 911 to report that the 41-year-old man was in their house with a gun.
Officers heard two gun shots as they arrived at the house in near the intersection of West 13th Street and South Oak Street, and found the man and woman dead inside.
The two girls, age 9 and 11, were found hiding in a closet and were not hurt.
Gallagher said the man and woman, whose names have not been released, broke up about five months ago. The 35-year-old woman who was killed had also filed for an anti-harassment order.
Detectives cordoned off the area and had to wait for a search warrant before going back in the home to begin collecting evidence.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Brighton man kills man attacking pair of women
A Brighton man shot and killed a 44-year-old registered sex offender who attacked two women in their home early Tuesday morning, officials said.
According to Dist. Atty. Gen. Mike Dunavant, David Fleming charged into the home of two women at about 3 a.m. Tuesday.
Fleming bound the women but one escaped and ran to a nearby home. Dunavant said Fleming, who lived in Munford, intended to rape the women.
The woman who escaped went to the home of Keith Ingram for help, Dunavant said.
Ingram, carrying a .40-caliber handgun, ran to the house and found Fleming attacking the other woman, officials said.
When Fleming tried to attack Ingram, Dunavant said Ingram shot Fleming once.
Tipton County Sheriff's deputies and Brighton Police officers found Fleming dead on the front porch of the home.
Fleming had been convicted of attempted rape in Tipton County. He's listed on the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's sex-offender registry.
Dunavant said Ingram has no criminal record and has a permit to carry the handgun.
The women who were attacked were treated at Baptist Memorial Hospital-Tipton.
TBI officials are assisting with the case. The Shelby County Medical Examiner will conduct an autopsy. Investigators took statements from several witnesses Tuesday. The shooting is still under investigation.
Friday, February 22, 2008
According to the American Red Cross, I should have at least three days worth of food and water on hand at all times. They go on to say that the food should be of the ready to eat variety and require no water or cooking. It seems to me that three days food is actually too little based on the length of some recent emergencies. Katrina anyone?
As far as ammunition goes, I've got a decent amount for the guns that I have, but not enough to last in a prolonged emergency. As soon as I get ahead financially I intend to rectify that situation.
As for the gun situation, I have a decent shotgun and some old, but still very capable mil-surp rifles and decent handguns in common calibers. I have to say though that I'm considering selling the SKS. No matter what I do I can't seem to hit the broadside of a barn with it. *sigh*
I'd like to get peoples opinions on what consumables and ammunition I should be stocking for a "rainy day". I feel uncomfortable in my current situation, supplies wise.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The first is one of my favorites, "El Paso." I tried to find a good video of the follow up song "El Paso City" but the one I found had severe problems with the audio. I do however suggest that you all give it a listen. It and "El Paso" bookend each other nicely. The second song here is the gun fighter classic "Big Iron" over scenes from one of my favorite animes Cowboy Bebop. Enjoy!
Monday, February 18, 2008
Some of you may or may not have noticed I haven't posted anything in over a week. There is an explanation for this, and if you're interested read on. If not, then don't worry about it.
The Sunday before last I started feeling sick around 1pm or so; a kind of crampy, nauseous feeling in my stomach. Thinking I was hungry, I went with my brother to get some lunch, but the feeling didn't go away. Later on it turned into a familiar achy, throbbing, sharp abdominal pain I've had before. No amount of Vicodin or Percocet would make it go away. About 11:30pm I drove myself to the emergency room of the local hospital and waited another 2.5 hours before being able to seeing a doctor and getting some pain relief through my IV. At the end of this ordeal a doctor suggested I go home and take some pain medicine (the doctors notes disagree on this, CYA). I really thought I should have been admitted, but I went along with this.
Stupid stupid stupid...
Later on Monday in the early evening I was in still in agony. It seriously felt like I had a baby Alien trying to claw it's way out of my stomach. My brother drove me this time and stayed with me until I got into the back to see the doctor, only a 1.75 hour wait this time. This time the doctor (a different one) himself suggested I be admitted and I agreed. I was admitted into the hospital to deal with a bowel obstruction.
The various x-ray's and CAT scans showed I had a section of distended bowel. Another doctor there suggested I talk with a surgeon colleague of his and I agreed. The surgeon suggested that he would be able to laparoscopically go in and correct the problem and I'd only have a few small incisions instead of being opened wide. Seeing as how I've had this pain several times before and I had every expectation that I would again in the future, I decided to have the procedure.
Now for the complication. I have a serious problem with my blood clotting too fast and I take medicine every day to keep that from happening. This medicine takes 3-4 days to take affect and the same to wear off. This meant that I had to be switched from Warfarin to Heparin, which has a much faster response time. Several days passed with me in bed doing nothing, in pain and having my blood drawn twice a day to see if my clotting time was right. I was poked with needles around 60+ times during my hospital stay.
Finally on Saturday morning it was time for the operation. The operating table looked identical to the ones I'd seen on TV that are used to strap prisoners down to for lethal injection. I'll admit it, I was scared. The OR was as cold as an ice box too. They asked me some questions and then had me breath some oxygen from a mask. Shortly afterward the anesthesiologist injected something through my IV that burned like fire and then my head felt like it was being pricked by a thousand needles and I went out.
After a short dream about cowboys (I'd been watching Wild West Tech just before they took me down) that made no sense I awoke in the recovery room.
The next two and a half days I spent in a really nice room with a great southern view. The doctor told me he removed some adhesions and some scar tissue where my bowel had kinked back on itself, forming a restriction in the size. He thinks I've had this all my life and it's only recently become an issue. Hopefully from now on I won't have this issue again. I can only hope.
I'm still sore, and don't expect me to post a lot until I get completely over this, but I'm back and still alive. Thank God!
Now, to catch up on the thousands of emails I'm sure have collected in my inbox while I've been out of commission...
Saturday, February 16, 2008
In dormitories, more guns will undoubtedly mean more gun-related accidents, more suicides and more senseless tragedies brought about by immaturity, lack of judgment, impulsivity, alcohol consumption or mental illness. But whatever their root cause, each of those incidents will only have been made possible by the proximity of guns.
So there it is. They've written off all college students as immature, idiotic, impulsive, drunks and sociopaths (just like Paul has almost word-for-word). They seem to forget that there are a lot of non-traditional students out there who would like to be safe in a classroom too.
Of course, I can think of a place where there are a whole lot more people of the similar ages to the average college classroom who are all sitting in "dormitories" with fully automatic firearms. It's probably even more frightening to said editorial boards that these young people tend to be conformist and all wear the same clothes and speak respectfully of tradition, authority, and discipline.
Let's also not forget that some of these guys are coming back and going to college. And now, the editorial boards are screaming that they are too immature to handle a firearm in a dangeous situation? Come on. They've been in combat how much more training do you need?!?!
This seems to me more like a case of projection. Go back and read that description again and you'll probably get a good picture of what a bunch of hippie kids were like before they got a chance to be on editorial boards at local newspapers. You know, immature, idiotic, impulsive, drunks and sociopaths...
Thursday, February 14, 2008
So now what? What are students supposed to do?
States have tried gun bans. They failed. Universities have tried gun bans. They failed too. The Brady Bunch will be capitalizing on the event again tomorrow with cries that "had only there been more stringent gun control" the whole thing could have been avoided.
Fine. Politics and idiots will keep being stupid. The question in my mind is what would I tell my kids to do if they were attending a university?
First, I would ask them if they would consider coming home. An education may be important, but you can get your stupid piece of paper rubber stamped through correspondence courses. So why live in a death trap that proclaims civil rights, but denies the right to self-defense?
Second, if they refused to or were unable to come home, I would tell them that they're going to be getting a package. It's going to have a 9mm, a box of premium hollow-point ammo, and a spare clip. The grips will be Crimson Trace. In addition, there is going to be a holster appropriate for them to carry it under deep concealment.
I know. I sound like such a radical. I would just tell my kid to violate the university laws and carry concealed anyway? Yep. An unjust law is not a law that must be followed. If the state is going to deny the right of self-defense to its citizens then the state must guarantee the safety of those same citizens. If they cannot or will not make such a guarantee then the law is fundamentally and unequivocally unjust. Therefore it is not a law my son or daughter should submit to.
This is called civil disobedience. It is the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. However, it is more than that. It is a statement of the simple truth that you and you alone are responsible for your safety.
The police in Illinois have admitted that there was nothing they could have done to have stopped this event from starting. The university will say the same thing. However, what they will not say is that had one law-abiding student in that audience been armed and able to use a firearm in self-defense the killer would still be dead, but others might have lived and still others would not have been wounded.
As for me, I want my child to come home alive - even if it means she's charged with a felony for saving her own life.
Go ahead, call me a radical. Call me a nut. I don't care. I love my children and I want them to rely on themselves for their lives, not on a police station fifteen minutes away.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Kodjo Yenga was ambushed in a quiet London street by about a dozen youngsters armed with knives and bats. The 16-year-old tried to escape but was cornered and stabbed in the heart. The gang ran away laughing as the teenager lay bleeding in his girlfriend's arms. He died later in hospital.
There it is again folks. Guns didn't kill Yenga, people did. If they had had guns there's little doubt that they would have used them to murder him. However, even if they did not have knives and baseball bats they would have proceeded to stomp the guy to death or beat his skull in with a brick. They were out for blood and Kodjo Yenga was unarmed.
Murderers are predators. They'll kill simply because they want to, because they think it's fun, because they won't control themselves, because they want to show how powerful they are, or maybe just because they're animals. They don't kill because they have a weapon in their hands. The weapon is only a convenient tool. They would be just as lethal without weapons, just less efficient.
Yenga may have been lured into a bad situation in a moment of youthful pride, but the simple harsh reality remains that in London the criminals are armed and the citizens are easily lead to the slaughter. In the face of such a brutal reality, it is absolutely unfathomable why England has declared that the thugs can run free in the streets, but honest law-abiding subjects are not allowed to defend themselves with the only weapon available that could even the odds in such a situation.
It's worse than unfathomable. It's immoral.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Just today a businessman was forced to defend his life from such a weapon when he says he caught a thief red-handed. The thief didn't like getting caught:
Yep. The weapon was a truck. The guy tried to flatten him like an armadillo in the exit lane off I-59 outside the Rockets arena during the playoffs. Not a nice thing to do.
Suddenly, "the suspect puts (the truck) in drive and takes off in the direction of the business owner," Chandler said.
Fearing that the truck would run him over, the business owner fired his weapon multiple times, striking the suspect in his side, he said.
The man kept driving for about three blocks before succumbing to his wounds, Chandler said.
Now, here's the part of the story that will really get you:
Go ahead. Put up a big question mark over your head. I did.
Under the so-called "Castle Doctrine," Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect their property. The case will be referred to the Harris County District Attorney's Office, where it will be reviewed by a grand jury, Chandler said.
It appears that the reporter thinks that the business owner only had the right to his pistol because he was on his property. The idea that he fired his pistol in self-defense when the bad guy was trying to run him over with a freakin' truck is just too alien to a reporter. She thinks he was using deadly force to protect his property. After all, the guy in the truck wasn't armed was he?
Of course he was! The muzzle energy of your typical 9mm is about 340 ft/lbs. Want to guess how much energy a 3,500 pound truck traveling at 35 mph carries behind it? Somewhere around 141,491 ft/lbs! A bullet will put a hole in you. A truck will make you into mush.
That doesn't seem to matter though. Apparently the only weapon the reporter could see was the pistol. She couldn't see the 3,500 pound elephant.
The usual suspects were on hand to sponsor and support the anti-gun bill. Thankfully it seems that a large number of gun rights supporters were on hand to thwart their efforts.
Here is a news story about yesterday's events. Enjoy!
As was pointed out by Joe Waldron, someone really should enlighten Ms. Comer and KOMO what the difference between defending yourself and vigilantism is.
Two bills take opposite sides on issue of guns on campus
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Two state lawmakers have offered dramatically different bills dealing with guns on college campuses and the measures touched off spirited debate Thursday at a Senate committee hearing.
The bill offered by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, would ban weapons at colleges that host high school students. That would include community colleges that offer the Running Start program, and universities when high school students are touring.
In response to Murray's bill, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, introduced her own measure that would prohibit universities from banning concealed weapons. Her argument is that people with permits to carry weapons would make campuses safer. Most universities now ban weapons on campus, but that is not a state law.
The debate before the Senate Committee on Higher Education touched on everything from the Second Amendment to last year's fatal mass shooting at Virginia Tech.
Neither measure is likely to go anywhere in this year's short legislative session, said Sen. Paull Shin, D-Edmonds, the committee chairman. He suggested the sponsors work out their differences and come back next year.
Murray said his bill is an extension of existing state law that prohibits weapons at elementary and secondary schools.
"When you talk about guns, people start to flip out," he said. "We have a tragic history in this country with guns in high schools. We're not infringing on the Second Amendment when we try to protect (students)."
But Roach declared, "Based on the policy of the last 30 years, it may be evident that this is a failed policy, there have been 38 college and school shootings since the prohibition of guns in schools was enacted. There were only two recorded during the 150 years preceding that prohibition."
Murray offered his bill after hearing from constituents of a case last October at Seattle Central Community College where a student was found carrying three weapons, including semiautomatic handguns.
At Virginia Tech last April, a student fatally shot 32 people before committing suicide.
At the University of Washington in Seattle, employee Rebecca Griego was fatally shot last April by an ex-boyfriend who then killed himself.
The hearing attracted a handful of college students, including some from the UW, who testified in favor of concealed weapons on campuses.
Trip Volpe, a UW student who has a concealed weapon permit, called the policy against weapons on campus ineffective and added "there's very little anyone can do to stop a person with a gun in hand and murder in their hearts."
During the current session, Gov. Chris Gregoire requested a bill aimed at improving campus safety, but it did not touch on the gun issue. Idaho's Legislature is also considering a bill similar to Roach's.
Pro-gun backers showed up in force, handing out buttons opposing the gun-banning bill. They argued that people who want to use guns to hurt people would not care about weapon bans.
"I want to make sure the record reflects that Virginia Tech was a gun free zone, and results (were) painfully predictable," said Brian Judy, testifying for the National Rifle Association. "Only the victims were gun free."
But gun foes said guns on campuses would create more trouble.
"Well-intentioned people who have firearms and want to save the day often end up adding to the violence of the situation or becoming victims themselves," said Kristen Comer, executive director of Washington Cease Fire. "Any time we start to get into the area of vigilante justice, it's a bit precarious."
The bill banning weapons on community college campuses is SB 6841. The bill prohibiting universities from banning concealed weapons is SB 6860.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Oh, that reminds me. If you're in my blog roll and you haven't linked back to me, please consider it. No pressure. I've linked to you because I like your blog and what you have to say and not linking back to me isn't going to change that any. No worries!
I hope you all had a great day!
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
This week’s outrage comes from Pasquotank County in North Carolina.
If you want a gun permit in Pasquotank, you can go to the new Pasquotank Public Service Building in Elizabeth City, but you must stand in line. The only problem is that you, a law-abiding citizen, may have to stand in that line with convicted sex offenders. That’s because if you’re there to get a gun permit, there’s only one line you’re allowed to stand in; and the sign at the head of that line reads, “Gun Permits/Sex Offender Registration.”
That’s right. In the county’s public service building, law-abiding citizens are forced to mingle and wait with some of the worst criminals in our society. As Bob Halbert, a 26-year retired Navy officer who was recently humiliated by standing in the line said, “I feel they’re putting me or a person coming in for a gun permit in the same category as sex offenders. If someone comes by who knows you and sees you, all it takes is one bad rumor and bam, you’re marked for life.”
Halbert went on to say, “A close friend of mine’s son recently visited us after his return home from Iraq, where he served for 15 months as a military policeman. And yes, he did put himself in harm’s way as I did numerous times in my career ... with 26 years of honorable service to this great country of ours. But in Elizabeth City, we are grouped with sex offenders if we want to apply for a gun permit.”
Commenting on the sign that requires that the two groups mingle, Pasquotank Sheriff Randy Cartwright said, “I don’t know where (else) we would put it.”
Did they ever consider having two lines?
As you know, law-abiding gun owners are some of the most upstanding citizens in our society. Yet in Pasquotank County, if you want to get a gun permit, you must endure the possibility of fraternizing with convicted felons, and the ensuing anger and public humiliation that would entail. The sign, publicly announcing and requiring the commingling of the two incongruent groups, showcases the contempt that many government officials still have for lawful gun owners.
Forcing law-abiding citizens to wait alongside sex offenders in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right is not only shameful; it’s outrageous.
UPDATE: More here.
Friday, February 1, 2008
When faced with a lone machine gun, most of you (70%) said that you'd take it under "protective custody" and "keep it safe for a rainy day." After all, it might come in useful one day...
Nineteen percent would tell the authorities where it was, five percent would take it to the police and a mere three percent would simply walk away.
I hope you found this poll to be as interesting as I did! A new poll will be up soon.
Feel free to discuss this poll in the comments!