Boy Attacked by Rabid Mountain Lion

Tell me again why we're even having a debate about allowing people to carry guns in National Parks? The danger this time was of the four legged variety, but there are numerous crimes, up to and including rape and murder, in our National Parks. Sometimes they even find the bodies. Just because you're in the wilderness doesn't mean you're safe, anymore than when out and about in "civilization."

"After a morning spent riding their ATVs, they stopped by a river around 2 p.m. to eat lunch. The two kids were on a sandy beach when the female mountain lion arrived, apparently also intent on a meal.

“She was walking and she just stopped right behind me,” P.J. said, his tone as matter-of-fact as if he were describing an encounter with a kitten. “I see my little cousin Brittany, she looks scared in her face. So I turn around and I see it. Then everyone starts saying, ‘Hold still. Hold still,’ so we just froze.”

“I was actually scared at first. I was shaking,” added Brittany, who said her discomfort was made worse because “I had an itch in my back.”

But when she heard her grandmother yelling, “Stay still. Don’t move. Don’t move,” that’s just what she did.

P.J.’s grandfather, Newton Smith, was about 10 feet away, and he’s convinced that had the children started screaming and running, the lion would have gone into lethal attack mode. Instead, it casually investigated P.J., who showed remarkable courage by standing stock-still as the animal scratched his back with its claws. Even when the lion opened its jaws and tried to get his head in its jaws, he didn’t move."

...

"Fortunately, another adult — P.J.’s uncle — in the party had brought a handgun along and had left it in a vehicle that was parked nearby. He ran to get the gun, and when the animal started to investigate whether P.J.’s head was bite-sized, Smith told him to shoot the animal, which he did with one extremely well-placed shot."

Read more here.

Armed Student Helps End School Attack

No, not in the United States, but in Israel. Students here would have probably lined up against the wall and waited to die. Anyway. A cowardly murderer walked into a seminary in Israel and started mowing down students. One student drew his pistol and fired back, striking the murderer twice in the head before someone else with a rifle finished the job. Remember folks, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

One of the students, Yitzhak Dadon, reportedly shot the gunman twice before he was finally killed by an off-duty Israeli army officer, who had gone to the school after hearing gunfire.

"I shot him twice in the head," he told the Reuters news agency.

"He started to sway and then someone else with a rifle fired at him, and he died."

So why don't we allow CCW permit holders to carry in schools here? Oh yes, it's because the anti's want to feel safe, without actually being safe.

Read more here.

Why you should carry everyday!

Here's a good article from WND.

Here's a sample. Be sure and read the whole thing.

"The first step to stopping criminals from acting like they are entitled to rob, rape and murder is to get as many honest, law-abiding citizens as possible out in society carrying a gun. If the deranged killers knew they wouldn't get a shot off before being gun downed, they would find a different outlet for their rage. Instead, they are most likely to find a location where everyone turns and runs like sheep or choose to meekly submit.

Usually, after a person submits he is shot.

Instead of kneeling down to be executed or running like frightened rabbits, people should use their right to bear arms and fight back. Only by stacking the deck in favor of the law-abiding can we hope to stop criminals from preying on innocent people. Two things need to happen to put criminals on alert."

(H/T) to Jeffersonian

CCW Bills in WA State

I was unable to make it to Olympia yesterday due mostly to health reasons. I wish I could have been there though, last year was a blast!

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.

An abuse victim takes the cops to court

This is just incredible. This woman is lucky to be alive after all she's been through. This woman did everything by the book, but restraining orders are only any good if they're out of Kevlar. Armed self defense is the best option for coming out of a situation alive. The cops have no duty to protect you either.

I wish her luck in her suit, but I don't think she will prevail.

"JONESVILLE - Vernetta Cockerham-Ellerbee peeled back the curtain of her bedroom window and saw the man she once loved enough to marry.

Hunched over in a field across the street, Richard Ellerbee toiled, shoveling clumps of dirt over his shoulder. She glanced past him to the nearby police station in this rural Piedmont town of 2,000. She spotted one of the department's nine officers just beyond the station's front door.

Cockerham-Ellerbee rang the station: He's back, she whispered. He was once again violating the judge's order to stay away. Police didn't catch Ellerbee that day. Cockerham-Ellerbee repeatedly reported her husband's threats during the summer and fall of 2002. He never spent a night in jail.

She didn't know what he was up to with the shovel until he called days later to explain: He was digging graves to bury her and the children.

Ellerbee delivered on his threat in November 2002. He broke into their home and fatally stabbed his teenage stepdaughter, Candice Cockerham. He left Cockerham-Ellerbee for dead, too, slicing open her neck with a shard of glass."

Read the whole thing here.

He was a quiet man...

I've just recently become aware of this movie. From the trailer, it appears to tell the story of a man on the verge of exploding and killing everyone in his office one day soon. Being well armed seems to have worked out well for him though for when one day another co-worker goes "postal" and begins shooting up the office, he pulls out his own gun and kills the "maniac with a loaded gun."

I might rent this just to see what kind of slant they put on things, although from the trailer it seems to be more about a romance with a paralyzed co-worker than anything else. We'll see...

However, I did find something interesting from the movie's website. This is their advice on how to deal with a "maniac with a loaded gun" at your own place of employment:

Workplace Violence

Unfortunately, regardless of how diligent we may be in our awareness, some of us may someday find ourselves in a crisis situation. So how can you protect yourself and your coworkers when faced with a hostile, potentially violent person?

1. Understand the mindset of the hostile or potentially violent person. The person has a compelling need to communicate his grievance to someone now! Give him a verbal outlet. Even if he is wrong, the individual is acting on perceptions that are real to him. In the overwhelming number of cases, the person just wants fairness.
2. Practice "Active Listening." Stop what you are doing and give the person your full attention. Listen to what is really being said. Use silence and paraphrasing. Ask clarifying, open-ended questions.
3. Avoid confrontation. Instead, build trust and provide help. Be calm, courteous, respectful, patient, open and honest. Never belittle, embarrass or verbally attack a hostile person.
4. Allow a total airing of the grievance without comment or judgment. Make eye contact (but don't stare). Allow verbal venting of emotion. Let the person have his say (not necessarily his way). Ignore challenges and insults and don't take it personally; redirect attention to the real issue.
5. Allow the aggrieved party to suggest a solution. A person will more readily agree to a resolution that he helped formulate. And it might surprise you that the person's suggestion may be very reasonable.
6. Move toward a win-win resolution. Preserve the individual's dignity. Switch the focus from what you can't do toward what you can. With the person's permission, call in additional resources, i.e., supervisor, Human Resources, Employee Assistance Program, Security, or Police.

Well now, I'll just get right on that. Notice there is no mention of armed resistance, inarguably the most effective way of stopping the bloodshed and coming out of the situation alive.

On second thought, I don't think I'll be renting this movie after all.

Sanity in Maine

Click here to read the whole thing.

'Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?

Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting range or hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.

It should only take a moment's thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.

It's one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it's quite another to consider that one's murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower.

However, there are places that draw these people like magnets, and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised.

Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say "No Guns Permitted" or "Gun-Free Zone."'

A little of this, and a little bit of that...

I'm feeling a lot better than I was a couple of weeks ago, although I'm still not as strong as I was. How exactly do I feel you ask? Here, I'll let Ozzy Osbourne tell you.

"Back on earth (you feel me)
Back on earth (reveal me)
Back on earth (still breathing)
Back on earth (reliving)"

I was well enough to go to the range today and took my SKS along with me. I put something in the neighborhood of 80-100 rounds downrange. It felt good to get back out on the range, even if it was finger numbingly cold. The first thing I did is remove the bolt and rough bore site the red dot scope at 25 yards, and once I was hitting well I moved it out to 50, and then 100 yards.

Okay, firstly, the red dot scope has a 4 MOA dot and no magnification (nothing wrong with that), which means that at 100 yards the dot covers a 4" circle. By the time I left I was placing the vast majority of the rounds (mil-surp) within that circle at 100 yards. I'll post a picture later when my camera battery recharges. Secondly, the SKS was never intended to be a sub-MOA rifle. It was made specifically to be just good enough to hit a man sized target in battle and that's it. Yes, I'll say it. The SKS was designed to kill people. That is it's function and there's nothing wrong with that. And at risk of people misunderstanding me, that's why I have it.

May I remind everyone of the Korean shop owners (look at the bottom of the Service & the Second Day sections respectively) who defended their homes and business's during the LA riots with the very same rifle and kept the murderous hordes at bay? And do I even have to bring up Katrina? After today's range session I know I can hit a man sized object 100 yards away from me with this rifle and there's comfort in that. There's nothing like fellow rioters falling all around you screaming to make you change your course of action. If they get closer there's always the 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buckshot, the 9mm and/or the .357 Magnum.

Don't tell me I'm paranoid. In light of recent events, a person would have to be an idiot to go unarmed anywhere in public. Yes, one armed citizen is all it takes to stop a psychotic bent on mass murder. The same people who think it's crazy to carry a weapon think it's perfectly reasonable to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in their houses. "What, are you expecting trouble?" they'll say, the obvious comeback being, "What, are you expecting a fire?"

Remember the Boy Scout Motto: "Be prepared."

Something that's eating at me a bit happened during my day at the range today. One of the RSO's (a very friendly individual) was talking to another shooter during a break in the shooting and I overheard them talking about gun shows. The RSO stated to the other that gun shows were attended by 10% legal gun owners, 10% law enforcement, and the other 80% were criminals looking to find a cheap gun. The other guy agreed and soon thereafter the "unlicensed dealer" straw man was brought up. They both seemed to think that Oregon had it right in requiring every gun sale be handled through an FFL and NICS. I interjected that in Washington, the WAC puts on the majority of gun shows and you can't buy a gun at a WAC show without being a member, and they do background checks on their members. I also pointed out that statistically, nationwide, less than .1% of crime guns come from gun shows. I never really did get a real response from the two of them. Turns out they're both employed in law enforcement. *sigh* I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out they both believed that something called an "Assault Weapon" really exists.

Anyway, I'm tired and my leg's starting to ache...and the kids need to eat something, so I'll sign off for now.

Later! :-)

Self-defense against suicidal killers

LINK
By Michael S. Brown
December 12, 2007

Mass shootings are becoming so regular that they are now a routine part of American life. There are almost always certain common factors. You always find one or more disturbed young men who wish to commit suicide in a way that will guarantee media immortalization. You also need a place where guns are prohibited, like a church, school or shopping center. These draw the killers like magnets.

We will never have the resources to provide police protection for all the soft targets. We will never get the media to stop turning killers into celebrities. It is unlikely we will ever get Hollywood and the video game industry to stop glorifying violence in ways that appeal to young men with money to spend. Trying to prevent access to guns is a losing proposition. As history has shown, someone who has made the decision to die is not going to flinch at the prospect of stealing guns wherever he can find them.

Media analysts seem blind to the obvious pattern in these violent attacks, but the recent violence at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs may give them a clue. In this case the attacker was quickly shot by a church member, Jesse Asssam, who had volunteered to provide armed security. Using her licensed, concealed handgun, she was able to end the attack in the early stages, saving many lives.

Contrast this to last week's attack at Omaha's Westroads Mall, where the deranged attacker was allowed to kill freely until he finally chose to end his own life. The difference is striking, not only in the number of victims, but in the message it sends to other lunatics who may wish to end their tortured existence in a way that enshrines them forever on television and the Internet. There is no glory in being shot down by a church member.

This example should be examined by everyone who has responsibility for any facility that would attract suicidal young men or homegrown terrorists. This includes churches, schools, office buildings and hospitals. Now is the time to take a survey of your employees, adult students or congregation. If you are willing to accept help from the police, why not your own people? You will find that some of them are not only quite competent with a handgun, but are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to protect innocent life. Look for the ones who already have a concealed handgun license and especially those with military or police experience.

Screen them carefully. If you would not trust them to protect your loved ones, pass them by. Help your volunteers obtain additional training. Make them part of an unpublicized security team that discusses likely threats and ways to respond. This would provide real security, not just feel-good fakery, with little or no expense.

Do this quietly, since those who don't believe in armed defense will respond with their usual strawman arguments. They'll say you want to give guns to everyone, even minors and incompetents. They'll say that fighting back makes things worse. But most of all they fear that people will be empowered to stand up in their own defense.

Wise Words From Uncle Ted

Gun-free zones get people killed
Ted Nugent
December 10, 2007 12:00 PM

Here we go again. Someone tell me why, with nearly 3,000 articles written worldwide within 48 hours following the tragic slaughter at the Omaha, Neb. Westroads Mall last week, not a single article mentioned the most important fact of all -- that there were "no guns allowed" in the mall?

What helped cause the tragedy is the liberal dream known as "gun-free zones." Guns also weren't allowed at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and every other location where the wanton slaughter of unarmed, helpless victims is a virtual guarantee.

It is truly anti-American and downright bizarro that private property and business owners can deny (that is, "infringe" on) this "inalienable" right bestowed upon free men by our Creator.

Consider what happened last year at a Salt Lake City mall. An armed off-duty cop properly defied that mall's "gun-free" policy and thwarted a mass shooting that was about to unfold.

How dense must someone be to hide from this information? Denial runs deep in a growing population of "we the sheeple." For shame.

When did a nation of rugged individuals turn into helpless whiners, crying and running in fear from danger and evil?

When did we abandon our natural instinct to counterpunch and attack evil, overpowering it and neutralizing it into submission?

When were we forced to dial 9-1-1, wasting precious, decisive time, instead of doing the right thing and stopping bad guys ourselves? When did we trade in independence for dependency? It's pathetic.

Every day in this country, according to the Department of Justice and other studies, armed, law-abiding citizens stop dangerous, violent confrontations from escalating into death and tragedy simply by having a gun handy to provide real "equality" on the mean streets of America.

Dedicated cops will tell you that they can't possibly be there to protect us. By the time the police show up, many innocents will likely perish at the hands of evil while good people hang around hoping and praying.

I would highly recommend that we finally learn from all these senseless tragedies. Get real. Get rid of politicians who support gun-free slaughter zones. Get rid of gun-free zones. Get a gun, learn to use it and do the right thing.

Bad guys should be shot dead, not Christmas shoppers.

Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman, is a rock singer, hunter and board member of the National Rifle Association. Please mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com.

From Calibre Press Newsline

Yes, even the cops get it. Read the entire article:

"Several years ago a comprehensive study of active shooter incidents found that most were over too quickly for a Rapid Deployment Contact team to assemble and make entry into the kill zone. In almost every incident where an active killer was stopped before they fully ran their plan, someone on-scene took immediate action. Generally, these “Instant Responders” were security guards or ordinary citizens. Even when police officers did stop the shooter, they were either on-scene when the shooting started or the first to arrive at the call.

The church shootings in Colorado this past Sunday followed the same pattern. At the first attack, the shooter was gone before police could arrive. At the second shooting, about 12 hours later, the killer was himself killed by a courageous volunteer security worker carrying a weapon on a concealed weapons permit, thus stopping him before he could do more damage. Similarly, an off-duty officer minimized the killing last spring at a Utah mall. Just a few days before the Colorado incidents, another mall shooting in Nebraska was over before police could get on-scene."

CCWing Reporter Won't be Charged

About time. And what about those "Only Ones" who arrested him falsely? Something tells me they're going to get away with it. Oh well, nothing new there, move along...

Thanks to Say Uncle.

-------

No charges for TV reporter who was arrested carrying loaded gun near Florida high school

MIAMI - Prosecutors have dropped the case against a TV reporter who was arrested carrying a loaded gun near a high school while working on a story on school violence, authorities said Tuesday.

Jeffrey Weinsier of WPLG, an ABC network affiliate, was arrested last month after police said he carried a weapon onto the grounds of Miami Central High School and refused to cross the street when asked by an officer.

A cameraman caught the encounter on videotape, which the state attorney's office used in deciding not to pursue the charges, Assistant State Attorney Maggie Gerson wrote in a memo released Tuesday.

Weinsier had been charged with armed trespass on school property, possession of a weapon, violation of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting arrest without violence. But he was not on school grounds when police approached him and ordered him to leave, Gerson said.

"Since the defendant was not trespassing, anything that was found on the defendant after he was arrested will be suppressed as a matter of law," Gerson wrote.

Weinsier's actions did not appear disruptive and students had been dismissed from classes when he was arrested, Gerson said.

The reporter began carrying a gun after he received death threats stemming from a series he did about unsanitary conditions at restaurants, according to the station. Weinsier has a concealed weapons permit, police had said.

"From day one, I knew that I had been on the public sidewalk outside the school," Weinsier said Tuesday. "I knew the law clearly. This is false arrest."

The reporter said he has filed a formal complaint with the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department and is considering legal action.

WPLG is owned by The Washington Post Co.

More on the Empty Holster Protest

This time a completely positive article in the East Tennessean. How school officials thought it would cause a panic is bizarre, but apparently they let it proceed. -Yuri

--------

Aiming to protect

Marksmanship Club participates in National Empty Holster Day

Adrienne Cline

Last Monday the ETSU marksmanship club participated in National Empty Holster Day. In this demonstration, students who are members of the club wore empty gun holsters to class as part of their efforts to get a state gun law changed.

Right now, those who are licensed to carry a handgun are prohibited from carrying one on a university or college campus. Organizations like this one want the law amended so that those who have a permit can carry on campuses as well as everywhere else.

A few weeks ago, some of those participating went to the administration to inform them of the activity the club would be taking part in. At first the university officials were against to demonstration.

"They were afraid that wearing holsters might cause a panic," said Jay Adkins, one of the marksmanship club's vice presidents. Since the club was not breaking any rules or laws, they were allowed to follow through with the demonstration on the allotted day. They also advertised their upcoming plans so students knew what was going on.

Adkins said about 15 to 20 students in the club wore holsters last Monday. The marksmanship club set up a booth in participation also with the homecoming charity fair and sold tickets to an "Open Range Day" at the mini dome's rifle range. Students who bought tickets were given proper safety gear and one-on-one training time with experienced shooters. There were also range safety officers patrolling during the activity to ensure well-being of all those present.
Thirty-seven people showed up to shoot. Adkins says that most of them were new shooters, too.

It is not yet known if the law has a chance to be changed to suit its supporters.

As long as a person has a permit, he or she is allowed to carry a concealed handgun wherever they please - the grocery store, a party, the street, etc. These students fear that in a crisis situation there may not be adequate protection available in crucial moments needed by the few officers who patrol the university. By not allowing licensed individuals to carry on campus, the club feels that college-age students are not being treated as adults when they are treated so under most other circumstances.

To obtain a permit, an individual undergoes an FBI background check, takes an eight-hour training course, pays a training fee of $50 to $60, and pays a fee of $115 to the state for the permit. They must also be 21 years of age or older.

"I would feel a whole lot safer if someone had a license to carry and stop someone from going on a rampage," said Jordan Taylor, marksmanship club member.

It is for their and other students' safety that they are fighting to change the law.

"Awareness is key," said Stephanie Adkins, club member. Knowing that there are others in the vicinity who could take action in the event of such happenings like a shooting could provide more reassurance, she feels. "Campus safety can't always be there immediately," she said.

In continued efforts to promote the change in state law, the marksmanship club is also wearing and selling T-shirts that read, "What you can't see can save your life."

Gun Love!

Oh my, where to begin?

Tex Slim (not his real name I'm sure), a free-lance journalist from Lubbock, TX opened forth his mouth and did spew out this bit of tripe. Go ahead and read it (and comment) if you want to, but I'll hit the highpoints here and give my thoughts. Gotta love the anti's though, they're nothing if not predictable.

The first thing this idiot did is smear one of my favorite music groups, big time gun guys (so I've been told) ZZ Top. Don't mess with the Top! The spew is entitled "ZZ Top's GUN LOVE all the rage on college campuses." Click here for the lyrics to "Gun Love", and here to watch a video of a guy loading and shooting a BP revolver with the song playing.

Hold your nose, we're diving in!

"Just when everybody thought college campuses were a peace loving bunch a new idea has surfaced that could bring back the "ugly" american past known as "gunslinger era".This is "Guns On Campus" week and of course Texas Tech students(fringe group,hopefully)will be wearing empty holsters protesting rules and maybe even state law that prohibits concealed weapons on any school campus.This "empty holster" protest will last from Oct 22-Oct 26 and is thought to have 110 college campuses effected. (Shouldn't that be 'affected'? -Yuri)"

First this guy seems to have deluded himself into thinking that college campuses are some magical bastion of peace and tranquility, a Utopian island amid the wild and uncivilized outside world. Last time I checked, schools were still a part of the community and all of the same problems that exist outside don't magically stop at the property line. Every crime that occurs off campus, robbery, rape and murder, to name just a few, occur on campus as well. What makes this guy think that the students are any safer on campus than off? I got it, he "feels" that it is so, and therefore it is...at least in the fantasy world he has made for himself in his own head.

And then he brings up another anti talking point, that concealed carry will lead to wild west shootouts. I have news for him, concealed carry is the law in the majority of states now and the data is in, the nightmare scenario of blood running in the streets has never happened. Why should students who have their CCW permit have to sacrifice their own security for the unfounded "feelings" of hoplophobes? Shouldn't laws be based in facts and logic and not feelings and emotion? That is what this protest is all about. For taking part in this protest he libels decent, law-abiding young people as "gun nuts" (in the next paragraph) a "fringe group" and rounds it up by likening the protest to a disease that "effects" other schools.

"I,being a former Tech student and staff,have never been comfortable with the "Andy Taylor/Barney Fife" types calling themselves campus cops with that "heater" on their hip.I remember a plump elderly fella at Tech med school named "Todd" who proudly carried his "heater" on hip and when I ask him about safety being on he replied,"They don't give me NO BULLETS".I guess he was gonna use his "heater" to pistol whip criminals since he had no ammo.Some years ago Tech med school had a Levelland boxer(Robin Blake) on campus cop roster and we all know about boxers and guns(deadly mix).

My best advice to those characters carrying empty holsters is put a LARGE water pistol in that holster(NO ALCOHOL-PROHIBITED ON CAMPUS) and "Wash away those criminals".For the more adventuresome protesters I could recommend the local US military induction center since personel are in demand for this thing called "IRAQ WAR"."

Way to smear people with broad brush generalizations there "Tex". I've seen my share of overweight security personnel and "mall ninjas" but now you're just trying to be mean. And what's the deal with boxers and guns anyway? Apparently we don't all know about them, so clue us in here. I could generalize about hopolophobic, free-lance journalists from Lubbock, TX as bed wetting pussies but that wouldn't be right, even if it may be correct.

Listen closely dip-shit, it's not about shooting guns and killing people that these students are protesting for, it's about being able to protect themselves if the need arises. Saying that they should join the army if they want to carry guns is disingenuous. Oh, and you misspelled 'personnel'.

"Some Texas colleges such as UT and Texas A&M will probably be involved since guns were allowed on campus in the 60's when Charles Whitman shot up UT campus and fellow students were seen "firing back" at Whitman with their "hunting" rifles.More than likely some "gung-ho" military cadets and instructors at A&M will wear service revolver holsters empty as a show of support for "Guns On Campus" movement.

TEXAS IS "GUN COUNTRY"!!

The learning impaired community(college students,faculty&staff) want to carry concealed handguns on campus??

SAVE US FROM THE GUN-NUTS ON COLLEGE CAMPUS!!!"

"Tex" continues his streak by associating the protesters with the likes of Charles Whitman and then basically calls them "retarded." Again, I could make disparaging comments about the size of his genitals and the like, but that wouldn't be right...

Texas is "Gun Country"? Cool! :-)

Um, exactly who are you praying to there at the end "Tex", Sarah Brady...Nancy Pelosi perhaps...or Hillary Clinton? Who cares...

This little screed demonstrates the difference between the pro-rights and the anti-rights sides. They are losing and they know it, and when faced with a lack of facts and logic on their side, they resort to grade school insults and name calling.

Goodbye Tex, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Local Reaction to the Empty Holster Protest

Click here for the video from KOMO TV 4 in Seattle, WA. This piece about Ethan Pratt and the Empty Holster Protest organized by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus aired last night.

Over all I thought it was a pretty balanced piece, although a bit short. They did manage to slip in a couple of negative views versus the one pro-gun viewpoint though. One is the Seattle Pacific University spokesman Vick Peirson who thinks that getting behind a lockable door is the best way to survive a "Cho-like" rampage, and the anonymous young woman who says that guns on campus would make her nervous. How she'd know about it since it's called Concealed Carry for a reason is beyond me. Besides, the protest organizers have stated this isn't about arming every student, instead, it is just about letting the students who have CCW permits already to legally carry their weapons with them on college campuses.

Funny, I've never once considered carrying a lockable door around with me for protection. One, like a police officer, it's too heavy and two, a gun is more effective.

What Good is Gun Control Anyway?

Gun control doesn't protect us -- guns do

Mike Thomas
October 4, 2007

Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked the cops to protect them from Barwick's former boyfriend.

She told them he had harassed her, threatened to kill her, bought a gun and sent an image of her riddled with bullet holes.

A Seminole deputy advised her to get a protective court order. We all know how effective they are against the criminally obsessed.

The deputy also would send her complaint to the State Attorney's Office, which is akin to tossing it into the Grand Canyon.

There is a lesson in all this.

The cops can't protect you.

The cops could not protect Erin Belanger and her five friends who were beaten to death by Troy Victorino and his band of thugs in Deltona.

She begged police for help in the days leading up to the assault.

"Can I ask you a question?" she said to a 911 dispatcher. "What can I do?"

Or better yet, what could they do?

Nothing.

I am not knocking the cops, just acknowledging reality. There are a thousand threats in the Big City. Picking out the real ones from the bluster is an impossible task.

Given this reality, given that Central Florida is turning into a bad Mad Max sequel, my liberal belief in gun control is getting wobbly.

I'm not advocating selling machine guns and cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart. But if somebody faces an immediate threat, I have a hard time understanding why they need to wait three days or longer to buy a handgun for self-protection.

Shouldn't we be allowed to go to a reputable gun store, get a lesson in how to use a specific weapon and buy it after the background check?

The stated reason against this is that some ill-tempered lout will blow a fuse, run off to Guns R Us, buy a Glock and open fire on his spouse, neighbor, boss or co-worker.

One might assume someone this prone to venting with a volley already has a gun, locked and loaded.

A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence.

It seems we pass laws that feel good without a lot of proof they are doing any good.

Maybe I need a good slap from Ted Kennedy, but I almost buy the National Rifle Association argument that the primary target of gun-control laws would be the people who shoot them at ranges, then lovingly oil and ogle them before safely locking them up.

As far as keeping guns away from bad guys, gun-control laws work as well as crack cocaine-control laws. My footnoted reference on this would be our crime blog.

We even have high school kids in Orange County firing guns in the air at high school athletic events.

If there were no guns, I would say allow no guns. But since all the wrong people already have them, and the cops can't do much about it except match their firepower, then it may well be time to arm thyself, citizen.

When Florida liberalized permits for concealed weapons in the 1980s, critics predicted a Wild West bloodbath. It never happened.

Responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly. Go figure.

Until the cops get better at enforcing gun control on those who shouldn't have guns, a better alternative for the rest of us is gun education, gun classes and secure gun storage.

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. His blog is OrlandoSentinel.com/mikethomas.

National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest

Press Release - National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest – Students for Concealed Carry on College Campuses – ConcealedCampus.com

On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims—He wasn’t concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech’s status as a “gun free zone,” this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

In thirty-nine U.S. states, thousands of collegiate students and faculty—age twenty-one and above—are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals might pose any more threat to college campuses than they do to office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc., they are currently prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses. On October 22 these students, through their Empty Holster Protest, will ask for a change.

In the last twenty years, the vast majority of the mass shootings in America—from the Texas Luby’s massacre to the Columbine High School massacre—have happened in “gun free zones.” Labeling an area “gun free” may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.

For over a year, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies, including studies by John Lott, David Mustard, William Sturdevant, and state justice departments, show that license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. Clearly, license holders pose little threat to college campuses.

While some may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, the students of the Empty Holster Protest contend that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place on America’s college campuses, and these students respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

Oregon Teacher Steps Forward

Oregon teacher suing to carry gun in class reveals identity

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon teacher suing to assert a right to carry a gun at school has made her name public.

She is Shirley Katz, 43, a teacher for 21 years, the last seven in Medford. She teaches English at South Medford High School.

She went public in interviews beginning Tuesday with Lars Larson on his talk radio show.

Katz says she fears her former husband. They were divorced last year, and she has had two restraining orders against him, the last of which expired in September. She said she missed a deadline to renew it.

Gerry Katz, 54, a photographer, told the Medford Mail Tribune that he's no threat and said his former wife has made unfounded accusations as part of her effort to limit his visitation with their 5-year-old daughter.

Shirley Katz has custody, and Gerry Katz has weekly visitation rights under the divorce decree, which required him to complete an anger management class, the Mail Tribune reported.

On Sept. 26, a judge denied her bid to limit visitation rights and his request for full custody, the paper said.

Gerry Katz also has a concealed weapon permit, but his gun was seized after he waved the weapon at another driver and was charged with disorderly conduct, the paper said.

Shirley Katz filed her suit under the pseudonym Jane Doe. She said she went public after the school district filed a motion to dismiss the case based in part on her anonymity.

"I am definitely under the microscope," she said. "I had sought to avoid that (by remaining anonymous). My son goes to school here. My daughter is in the school system."

Katz filed the lawsuit Sept. 18. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 11.

The Oregon Firearms Foundation is financing her lawsuit.

Oregonians who have concealed weapon permits may carry a gun onto most public properties, including schools, without violating state law.

School districts, however, commonly bar teachers from carrying guns to classrooms.

Oregon Teacher Poll

Go here and show your support for her right to carry a concealed weapon in her school!

Why Would Anyone Need to CCW?

Robb over at Sharp as a Marble posted a link to this video yesterday, and I think it clearly illustrates a very convincing argument for CCW. In it, an ex-con walks up to an off duty corrections officer outside his home and starts shooting. The victim gets shot in the ankle, but manages to get his own gun out and fires three shots at the perp, two of which hit him, and he goes down permanently. By having a concealed handgun, the victim managed to turn the tables on the bad guy and save not only himself, but his female friend as well. Have a look at the video and see for yourself.