The Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun group who has no dog in this fight at ALL and therefore has no reason to cook the statistics)claims*that owners of Concealed Handgun Licenses are "responsible" for hundreds of deaths "... not involving self defense...".
One needs to read carefully when evaluating claims from this source.
Since the article doesn't provide links to the "websites" which 'offer details', it's impossible to confirm or refute their claims.
As for their assertion that these killings were "not involving self defense", one wonders how many deaths were deemed necessary due to defense against other violent crimes, or in defense of other persons (including family). Nor does the article provide information about whether the shooters were charged with a felony ... let alone tried, or convicted.
Are they lazy? Do they have any facts to support their message? Or are they just liars?
Blanket Charges such as this are typical of VPC screeds. Unsubstantiated by reputable third parties, their so-called statistics meet the lowest level of believability; "if they say so, it must be true".
I call this innuendo; an obvious distortion of facts offered to convince the already convinced anti-gun crowd which has declared it's intention to delete your 2nd Amendment rights from the Constitution.
(It is telling, to compare the sourced claims of Pro-Second Amendment websites to the unsourced claims of the anti-gunner websites.) *In case VPC deletes their egregious statement from their website, the link and full text is printed under the fold.
The YouTube account of Hank Strange has been suspended. This account has been terminated for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines. According to a video posted by TheFireArmGuy, Hank received a strike for a video that was several years old. This usually means a group of people are systemically flagging videos.
Peaceful armed protest is welcomed. If you are planning to open carry, please do so with unloaded weapons.”
What's notable about this short news story from New Mexico is that it was published as it if were "News Worthy".
The point seems to be that a political candidate called for "Peaceful Armed Protest".
It seems that the Main Stream Media cannot conceive of a peaceful protest by armed citizens.
(I note in passing that there were no "follow-up" stories reporting a massacre at the Las Cruces City Council meeting.)
There's something wrong in America, the land of the Second Amendment, when tabloid writers consider a peaceful protest by an "Armed Citizen" to be an anomalous event.
Given the recent string of school shootings, it seems only reasonable that Americans might choose to attend public forums while armed in defense of themselves, and others.
When people say there were fireworks at a city council meeting, it’s almost always hyperbole. It may be a more apt description for today’s 1 p.m. meeting of the Las Cruces City Council following a Facebook post by Republican candidate for probate judge, William Webb.
In response to a deadly string of school shootings, including the February 14th Florida school massacre of 17 people and the December 2017 shooting in Aztec, New Mexico, that left two student athletes dead, the City Council is scheduled to debate a resolution on guns.
Saying the Communists and Fascists on the City Council were trying to pass a resolution to outlaw the sale and ownership of automatic weapons, Webb wrote, “Come out and stand up for your rights! Peaceful armed protest is welcomed. If you are planning to open carry, please do so with unloaded weapons.”
The case of a former Wichita State University student who was arrested for carrying a loaded gun on campus points to what could be an unintended loophole allowing criminals who are barred from carrying a gun to get away with it.
It also points to local "regulations" (probably not 'laws") which constrain college student from their right to protect themselves.
The work "LOOPHOLE" should be a warning that someone's Constitutional Rights are being infringed.
Or not: When the laws are imperfect (as usual), interpretation is dubious.
The original article infers that the student was not of sound mind, and had 'issues" which might have affected his judgement; it's difficult at this time to determine whether or not he was competent to carry a weapon.
Whether or not this is, indeed, a "Loophole" remains to be determined. In the actual event, that the campus police disarmed the student was probably a valid precaution.
A liberal snowflake gets to know gun culture from the inside.
The author walks us through every detail of his decision to 'find out' what the attraction of firearms might be. And during the trip, he pays much attention to detailing how upsetting ... yet fascinating ... the journey has been.
As I read through the article (excellent written, atypically "fair and balanced" as they say", I began to wonder about his motivation. If he finds guns so fearful, why did do this. True, it's a fine example of expository skills; and though it's rather long, it's not a waste of time and I hope he received a fat check for his efforts.
But still .. he harps on the fear he felt. Why the fear? Was there something special which made the 'experiment' particularly dreadful for him?
Then toward the end of the article, *under the header "TRIGGER WARNING"* he provides full exposure:
He has a suicidal tendency which he has fought years; he controls it by medication.
There Are Some People Who Simply Should Not Have A Gun
I have made this point in my writings over the past ten years here. To my mind the sorts of people who should not have a gun include:
Violent Criminals
People who are either incompetent, untrained, or unable to comprehend the lethality
Mentally Unstable People
There is obviously some overlap in these three major categories, plus sub-categories not defined here.
But a person who is admittedly suicidal, and who requires medication to control suicidal urges, is certainly playing a life-and-death game with himself. This author qualifies in the second and third categories, although he makes a stringent effort to describe why he shouldn't be included in the second (and lacking a felony conviction, he has not qualified for the first category).
Although I admired his work, and still have my copy of "Hunting with Hemingway", I lost my respect for Ernest Hemingway when he took his own life.
And you, sir, are no Hemingway.
Please follow up with your better judgement, and remove that damn Glock from your life, rather than to remove your life with the Glock.
I've always wondered about this. Curiously, I made sort of an ... oblique (if it's not facetious of me to use the word here) reference to the possibility only recently.
Unfortunately, there's nothing "facetious" about it, when the (easily foreseen) consequences actually occur:
SayUncle Use a holster: Still pointing the gun at the workers, Pouncy stooped over to collect the cash, Antonietti said. Shifting the gun in his waistband as he ran out, he apparently pulled the trigger, firing a bullet that struck him in the penis, Antonietti said.
I am NOT going to 'snicker' here, or make any remark which might be inadvertently interpreted as to reference the inability of really stupid people to pass their genetic hindsight to their (now unlikely) progenity.
(Give me a moment; I'm still laughing at the fool!)
Please don't do that whole "appendix carry" thing on my range. I have a sick sense of humor, and it's going to be difficult for me to phone for an ambulance while I'm laughing out loud at the stupidity of people who think that "Appendix Carry" is A Good Idea.
And you're bleeding? DUH!
It;s hard not to laugh at a man ex-man who will never get 'hard' again because he just shot his dick off. Rule Number One: Never Point Your Gun At Anything You Don't Intend to SHOOT! https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/man-who-shot-himself-in-penis-charged-with-west-pullman-robbery/
Two months ago, a man in Nevada opened his front door to find his 6-year-old pit bull twitching in a bloody heap. The dog had been shot by a cop who immediately claimed the dog was charging at him.
On April 10, Gary Miller was at his home when he accidentally triggered his house alarm by sitting on his keys. The home security company called him to confirm a breach, and he responded saying there was no problem. Deputy John Tolle, who was responding to the call, claims he did not get that message, and showed up at Miller’s residence. In the backyard, Gary Miller’s pit bull, Blu, heard Deputy Tolle entering through the front gate, and sprinted out to investigate. When Deputy Tolle heard the dog barking and saw the dog running toward him, he immediately grabbed his gun. What happened next was captured on the officer’s body camera. The footage was released to the public on June 10.
I'm not a "Dog Person", but I admit that when I'm confronted by a dog, I tend to shout and growl back at it. That usually gives the dog a moment to re-evaluate the situation.
(Maybe he isn't the biggest dog in the pack!)
I understand that police tend to categorize "aggressive behavior" as a Threat. I get that.
Still, I can't help but wonder if this Law Enforcement Office might have over reacted.
As for the "false alarm" (see the video) ... there's enough blame to spread around. The homeowner felt he was threatened, called for the cops, and later called back to identify his initial call as a false alarm.
The deputy didn't get that information, and he was keyed up for "whatever happens:"; meaning that he wasn't privy to the details of the call.
Not making excuses, but for all he knew, the dog may have been the problem.
More than 16,000 concealed weapons permit holders in Florida may have had their names accidentally made public because of a data breach at the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The agency released a statement saying concealed weapons licensees who renewed online may have had their names accessed, and 469 other customers were notified that their Social Security numbers may have been hacked as part of the breach.
The article identifies this as a "HACK". As far as we know, some clerk printed a list and dumped it in a wastebasket without shredding it. That, too, is a "data breach".
How concerned is the "Department of Agriculture" about providing third-level security on their database? Was it wise for Florida to embedextremely sensitive personal information in a database designed to identify crop rotation practices in commercial orange groves? (I made that up.)
I know people who have chosen not to apply for a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) because of this very thing. Well, and also because they object to "the guvmint" knowing more about their private lives than is absolutely necessary.
They still carry ... but contend that the Second Amendment is their CHL.
(And they are right.)
Just one more reason to love your country but fear your government.
I so fear my government that I applied for a renewal of my CHL, because it's better to risk being hacked than to be arrested for carrying without a license from the state.
"License From The State" ... to exercise my constitutional right. Isn't that a sorry tale?
I have commented unfavorably on the issue of the so-called "Appendix Carry".
(We use to call it "Mexican Carry" before that was considered to be a ... racist, socially unacceptable and very insensitive term.)
From now on, whenever the subject comes up (excuse the expression) in conversation again, I can simply point (excuse the expression) to this article as a very good reason why ... IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, Cowboy! (Excuse the expression.)
There have been about 700 unintentional shootings this year—and this one may be the most unfortunate. (At least, among the non-fatal incidents.) A poor guy named Murad Hamedallah in Toledo, Ohio was found by police on the ground near a garbage can with a bullet hole in his penis and his right thigh. Witnesses say he was screaming after he got out of his car, tried walking, and collapsed. You would be screaming too, if you went through what he did.
An FBI agent told cops he lost his loaded gun in the back of a livery cab in Brooklyn over the weekend, authorities said Monday.
The G-man, 43, said he had his .380 semiautomatic weapon inside his pants holster on his right side when he got into the taxi outside 7509 Third Ave. in Bay Ridge around 2 a.m. Saturday. The address comes back to The Salty Dog sports bar.
The FBI agent said he then took the cab home and went to bed, according to cops. When he woke up in the morning, he realized the pistol was gone, he said.
It's impossible to be a caring human and not wish that the continuing plague of The Slaughter of Innocents would ... just ... STOP!!!
I don't know what the answer is.
The easy, and most obvious solution is just GET RID OF ALL THE GUNS!
If just getting rid of all the guns would solve the problem of The Slaughter of Innocents, that might something that we should consider as a nation of conscientious people.
The murder of teacher Karen Smith and 8-year-old Jonathan Martinez, one of her students, shines a spotlight on at least four of the major correlating factors that increase the risk that a person will suffer violence: disability, domestic abuse, race, and guns. As we think about each one, we need to keep our empathy. We can't ever let ourselves get comfortable with this kind of slaughter. Then empathy must drive us to act by raising awareness about domestic violence and violence against people with disabilities. But most of all, as Karen Smith and Jonathan Martinez are laid to rest, we must first imagine, then act to create, an America in which there are fewer and fewer guns.
But it wouldn't stop The Slaughter of Innocents,
What it would stop is the ability of people to protect their own against the mad men.
There is no easy solution here.
"The only thing that can stop a Bad Man with a gun is a Good Man with a gun!"
Trite, and easily disdained by men of narrow vision, but there is an element of truth in it.
I have grandchildren in schools across this nation and in other nations, and I hope that they never find themselves in the horrifying situation where a monster intrudes upon their scholastic day with mayhem on his mind. I don't know whether I could deal with the grief, sorrow and anger if any harm should come to these innocent boys and girls.
What I would like to do is to offer a simple, logical and easily implemented solution that would (with the stroke of a pen) completely eliminate the possibility that sad, lonely, angry, disenfranchised men would impose the consequences of their empty lives on my children, your children .. any child, anywhere.
I don't have that answer. And the answers that have been presented are obviously inadequate; I have a nightmarish image in my mind of Karen Smith and Jonathan Martinez .. he hiding behind his trusted teacher, only to join her victimhood as bullets rip through her body into his.
Even the most noble efforts to protect our children, however well intentioned, are too often in vain.
We cannot stop the bullets. We cannot stop the guns.
What we need to do is to stop the gunmen.
In Minority Report, Tom Cruise played a character who had access to some kind of Weird Science which could predict when someone was about to "lose his nut". That would be great, to be able to KNOW when some mild-mannered man is due to yield to his insane fantasies and commit mayhem.
But that was only fiction, it's a dream. It will never happen.
ANTIOCH, Tenn. (WKRN) – An attempted carjacking victim scared off a group of people who tried to steal his car in Antioch early Thursday morning. It happened on Lori Drive around 1 a.m. Metro police told News 2 the man said he was in his car when three white men with bandanas over their faces approached him and attempted to open the car door. The man fired his legally-owned weapon in self-defense and the three men ran away, according to police. One of the suspects fired a shot as the group was fleeing the scene.
[emphasis added] Note that the news article reports that the driver 'received' return fire; the "suspects" were obviously armed. If you're assaulted by armed hooligans, and you are in fear for your life, trying to scare them away by 'firing a shot' only warns them that you are armed. They could as easily have shot the man.
In 2013, Dumb Joe suggested last year that people fire a gun "into the air" to frighten away attackers.
Bad idea.
It could get you arrested for 'firing a gun inside city limits'. And you need to be aware of where that bullet is going to end up.
TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO LICENSE PLATE SPECIFICATIONS, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO ISSUE A STICKER TO EACH CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER WHO IS A VEHICLE OWNER THAT MUST BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE OWNER’S LICENSE PLATE TO INDICATE THE VEHICLE OWNER IS A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER.
The point of this bill is moot, and serves no useful purpose (unless you think that everyone should know you have a CHL).
Police routinely call in for a check on the license plate when they pull you over, and the information that the registered owner is a CHL owner is available to them. You may notice a delay of a minute or two between the time you stop and the time the officer walks forward to talk to you.
The polite and prudent thing for the driver to do *while the cop is checking you out* is to use the time to gather your drivers license, your insurance card and your CHL and have them in your hand when he approaches your car.
Roll your window down, keep your hands where he can see them. It's not necessary for you to declare whether you have a weapon on your person; he may assume that is a 'belligerent' statement.
And remember the advice of Patrick Swaze in "Roadhouse": BE NICE!
In one high-profile incident, the live-streamed aftermath of the shooting of Philando Castile at a traffic stop at the hands of police in Minnesota sparked country-wide outrage and was ruled manslaughter. That and another death in Louisiana sparked a protest in Dallas, which a sniper took advantage of to kill five police officers.
You don't have to be a threat to the cops. You just have to be reasonable.
I was pulled over by a local policeman a few years ago for speeding.
He was right; my Lady was sick, needed a refill of her Cancer medicine from the Pharmacist,
I was more concerned about getting the pain-relieving drugs to her as quickly as possible than I was about driving safely.
It was dark when the policeman pulled me over, and I recognized that he may not feel safe in the encounter. I knew that he had called my license plate in, and they had told him that I had a CHL (Concealed Handgun License).
When he pulled me over, there was a 3 minute delay while he checked up on me through the radio.
During that time I pulled out my drivers license, my insurance card, and my CHL.
When he approached my car, I had the interior lights on, my hands on the wheel, and those three documents in my hand. He asked me for my drivers license, and I gave him all the the information he needed to know (and which he had probably already received from his station downtown).
After I gave him the three documents, we chatted for a few minutes. I acknowledged that I was driving too fast, and explained why. I was in the wrong, so I was not confrontational.
Hell, he had me dead to rights.
But he wasn't afraid of me.
Even though I told him that I had a pistol in the compartment between the front seats.
My hands were in plain sight on the steering wheel at all times ... again, with the interior light on.
I was no threat to him.
He let me go with only a warning. Well, it probably helped that I hadn't had a ticket in the past 5 years, but I HAD a warning on a speeding charge 6 years earlier. That didn't matter.
Folks ... if you're pulled over by a cop, you probably deserve it. Even if you think you do NOT deserve it, the best thing you can do (especially if you have a CHL) is to NOT present a threat!
If you think it's a bum rap, go to court and explain it to the judge. He probably doesn't have a gun.
(I actually had that experience 20 years ago ... explained the situation to the judge: he let me go because I manned up and because I was trying to merge with fast traffic at the off-ramp of a bridge.)
I'm not black, so I can't speak to their experience.
All I an say is ,,, well, I've already said it: man up, don't be a jerk, take the ticket if you deserve it.
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
Phoebe (did you notice that she is living in Canada?) is only one of many folks who allow their timidity to overwhelm their good sense.
They (Phoebe and her kin) think that banning guns would stop gun violence, which is usually perpetrated by criminals who are often violating the law by the mere possession of a firearm and compounded by the criminal acts they perform.
They don't stop to consider that firearms are often used to stop crime, or to protect self, family, home. All they see is the downside of firearms, never the benefits.
I think that these radicals are afraid of firearms. Well ... I'm quit certain of that.
Why?
The reason is because they are unfamiliar with firearms ownership, and they project themselves into a place where they see that they might have a gun and they might then be unable to control their inner violence.
No, no, I see you shaking your head. I'm sincere; I believe that they are unable to conceive of themselves being a responsible firearms owner. Yes, I think they're dumb-asses. No, I don't think they have a legitimate authority to criticize people who are responsible gun owners.
Okay, let's see a show of hands: How many of you readers are gun owners who have discharged your firearm within the city limits, outside of a legal shooting range?
Okay, of those of you who are left, how many discharged your firearm within city limits OTHER than in defense of self, family, property?
Oh. MUCH smaller response quota.
How many of those left have been incarcerated for breaking the law because of this discharge?
(I suspect the response quota is now ZERO, because you're not allowed to respond to blogs from within your jail cell. Which is probably where you should be.)
RESPONSIBLE Firearms Ownership:
Anti-gunners (people opposed to the Second Amendment) tend to be emotionally involved in The Movement. They think that nobody should be trusted with a gun, because they don't think they can be trusted with a gun. They judge others by themselves, and the rest of us appear lacking in judgement because THEY don't trust themselves.
It's that old meme, supported by such 'trusted' sources as the New York Times in their December 4, 2015 opinion article "End The Gun Epidemic In America" where the editors opine that
"It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."
That Grand Old Lady, NYT, suggests:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Certain Kinds of Weapons/Certain Kinds of Ammunition
We wonder, as we should, what the word "Certain" defines. And we wonder more who defines it, and why, and what their imperatives must be.
The NYT article 'certainly' avoids being specific, so if you agree with their philosophy, should we likewise agree with the particulars ... particularly when they are so careful to avoid being specific?
This is the kind of opposition that legal, responsible gun owners face; a huge megalopolous newspaper has made a decision about a constitutional issue, and they certainly have the subscriptions to persuade a bunch of readers in a state where firearms are almost totally BANNED.
As Ned Pepper said in the movie: "That's Bold Talk from a One-Eyed Fat Man!" (*See Below)
But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, as Ned Pepper discovered to his disappointment, just challenging The Law isn't the same thing as obviating The Law. The thing about Laws is, the folks who enact them generally understand that a certain degree of specificity is required. Otherwise, the first wise guy who runs up against it hires a lawyer who (in turn) destroys a poorly written law, and his client goes free.
Which is the sort of thing which gun owners usually like, and the folks who fear gun owners don't like.
Let's get back to that part about:
... yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
In the first place, those of my "fellow citizens" whom I count as 'friends' are not willing to trust their lives to "a policeman on every corner"; they carry their own protection, and are prepared to defend themselves against the plethora of neer-do-wells who would do them harm. As do I. In the state where I live, a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is not difficult to acquire .. it's a "Shall Issue" state; and they have availed themselves of the legalities.
In the second place, anyone who is not prepared to defend himself is assuming the "Cop On Every Corner" defense, which is ridiculous. The police can't be everywhere, and to believe otherwise is to expose yourself as a victim to every nut-job in the neighborhood. That's just stupid.
And in the third place ... well. there is no 'third place'; if you don't care enough about your own life to defend it in this era of global terrorism (which can strike anywhere), then you probably don't carry a jack and a spare tire in the trunk of your automobile, either. Dumbshit!
Getting back to the quote above, I don't consider it an act of concern "for the good of (my) fellow citizens" to give up my weapon(s).
Those folks back East, who remark nonchalantly about the Second Amendment as if it were an inconsequential option, are far too trusting in their Police Departments for my taste. I've seen the cops in my little college town, and they are fat, dumb and happy. They don't expect things to 'go wrong' .. instantly, without warning, and fatally.
See Florida, and California, and El Salvador.
(By the way, these are 'places' where Gun Control is often The Law Of The Land)
And while I'm not a 'one-eyed fat man', I admit to being outspoken on the issue of self-defense.
BOTH my eyes are functional. *
A year ago, Mike Strickland was beaten and ended in the hospital for several months. His cameras were stolen, then returned with the drives wiped clean. He has video of the attack, but the authorities refused to prosecute. Recently, Mike was threatened by a mob of anarchists and Black Lives Matter activists again. This time he protected himself. Victoria Taft has written a well researched article, with video, that shows Mike Strickland defending himself from the mob in Portland. The link has it all. From victoriataft.com: Mike Strickland was arrested and charged in Portland for pulling a gun at a Black Lives Matter/anarchist protest when a mob converged on him. But now he sits in jail. As one person put it, “[Mike Strickland] is now a political prisoner in Multnomah County.”
On Jan. 20, the Kansas Board Regents approved a revised policy that states, “Beginning July 1, 2017, any individual who is 21 years of age or older and who is lawfully eligible to carry a concealed handgun in Kansas shall not be precluded from doing so on state university campuses except in buildings and areas of buildings for which adequate security measures are provided, and except as otherwise prohibited by law.”
[paraphrased]: This policy will still prohibit the open carry of firearms "anywhere on campus".
Also, the liberal professors/staff aren't comfortable with using their didactic teaching styles on armed citizens:
This debate isn't specific to Kansas. After Texas recently passed a similar law, Fritz Steiner, the dean of the architecture school at the University of Texas at Austin, announced he was leaving for a similar post at the University of Pennsylvania. His reason: the new law allowing guns in his classroom. Texas is the eighth state to allow concealed weapons on its public, post-secondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other states are Mississippi, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Wisconsin, Utah and Kansas. [sic]
It's hard to force draconian solutions on free citizens.
Perhaps the Universities may end up learning more from their students, than their students learn from them.
My curious children freely play in a home environment I have worked hard to ensure is safe. To that extent, I am adamant about keeping guns outside our doors.
This mother has strong opinions on the measures which are necessary to protect her children. I don't blame her. I don't even disagree with her. My family wasn't raised that way (there were ALWAYS guns in our homes) but that has nothing to do with the way she wants to raise her family.
But looking at the comments attached to the article, it appears that a lot of people take their disagreement personally. Some folks went as far as to say "why don't you put a gunfree zone sign on your door and see what that gets you?" or words to that effect.
Apparently, the old Heinlein mantra that "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" isn't valid when anonymous trolls spill their guts online.
The whole population of civilian firearms owners are tarnished by this kind of vicious response. The author of the article will not only keep firearms out of her home, but people who own firearms will now seem dubious to her.
It does no good for us to say "hey, that guy is not representative of our community".
I tought another firearms class yesterday, and I was impressed by the humanity and good nature of the 'new friends' I was privileged to meet.
I wish I could have introduced them to the author. She deserved the opportunity to meet the true face of our Band of Gun Nuts.
An off-duty Baltimore policeman on Saturday shot and killed a man he says appeared to be holding him at gunpoint in the suburbs of Linthicum Heights. But when Anne Arudnel County detectives surveyed the crime scene, they realized the would-be robber was wielding a toy gun. Amid national debate over US gun laws, some think banning fake guns is a no-brainer. By Story Hinckley, Staff DECEMBER 21, 2015
I agree, I think banning fake guns is is a no-brainer.
As in: anyone who thinks banning fake guns has no brain cells worth preserving.
Don't blame the "gun"; blame the actors who precipitate the tragedy. (Often the person who gave a kid a realistic-looking toy gun. See below.)
We read a couple of stories a year about someone getting shot (usually by a police officer) because they are brandishing a toy gun. Sometimes that is a tool which a person is using to commit a crime, as in this case.
Sometimes it is a toy which a child waves at a policeman, thinking it a harmless joke; it never is.
It's too often a tragedy:
In the child's case, they needed to be taught by their parent, guardian, responsible adult or that weird 'uncle' who shows up to talk to mamma .... that it is never a good idea to threaten someone with a toy, even as a joke. That's Lesson Number One in Responsible Gun Ownership (and if you don't think kids learn how to be responsible when they get their first toy gun, you are part of the problem.)
In the case of a hold-up, life is like a box of chawk-uh-lahts; you never know what you're going to get when you're trying to strong-arm an armed cop ... or citizen.
Why would a hold-up man (or boy) try to rob a stranger using a toy gun?
Because:
he's very new to the game and can't afford a real gun;
or because he keeps buying dope with the money he's stolen before and forgets to buy a gun;
or because he's trying to avoid being charged with Armed Robbery in case he gets busted;
or because he is desperate;
or because he doesn't REALLY want to shoot someone, and figures the worst that can happen is he gets the crap beat out of him:
or because he is stupid. (Well, that much is reliably assumable, right from the get-go!)
He probablydoesn't expect to get shot.
(Which right there, in four words, is the best argument for Concealed Carry Laws As An Aid To Social Respect.)
The thing is, the cop doesn't know it's a toy. He has to assume it's a real gun, and he's about to get shot. It's that thing about decision-making, judgement, confusion, Situational Awareness and Rule Number One (see below).
No no, it's not like it sounds. I married the lady because I liked her, and I still like her (even though we drive each other crazy if we are in the same room together for too long).
We parted 30 years ago .. more or less.
We get along MUCH better now that she has remarried and moved 600 miles away.
She has kind of gotten into the family genealogy thing, and I found a bunch of old letters and Church of Latter Day Saints Genealogy forms in my attic, so I called her and asked if she would be interested?
Well, yes. She planned to drive up for the week to visit her mother and her aunt, and it would be a lot less complicated if she and her current husband (one of my best friends) could just stop by and pick up the box of letters.
Which sounded like a great deal, and I was happy to tell her she is invited to visit. She is the mother of my two children, and surely at least ONE of them may be interested in our family tree!
So I did a little picking up around the house, some light dusting, vacuum the living room carpet, drag my make-shift reloading bench off to the side of the living room, vacuumed again to get all the spent primers dropped from the reloading bench, searched the living room for pistols and ammunition which just happened to be laying around.
(Did I mention I've been a bachelor for 25 years now? Not that it matters, one just tends to form untidy habits when there's nobody around to nag remind you gently that "... disassembled firearms and cleaning solvents don't belong on the dining room table, DEAR~! ...." you know, the usual.)
My ex wife is coming to visit tomorrow. With her current husband. And would it be okay if she brings her ankle-biter chihuahua "Gypsy"?
Sure, no problem.
"Oh, and Mom and Auntie L. are coming too because they want to visit the cemetery and see" (me) --- her "favorite ex-son-in-law." (Only one, too!)
.
I HOPE they weren't expecting to see me in the cemetery!
After all, I did divorce their daughter/niece a few decades ago.
OH! MY! GAWD! THE M.I.L. AND HER SISTER ARE COMING TO MY HOUSE!
(actully, Auntie L. is a sweetheart.. Ant the M.I.L would be, too. If I wasn't related to her.
I honestly believe this.)
SO: New Cleaning Regimen:
Move EVERYTHING that's on the carpet and vacuum where vacuums have never ventured before!
Get rid of the "clean towels" in the bathroom and replace them with the "Guest Towels" my daughter sent me for my birthday this year.
Empty the vacuum cleaner (it was getting full of expended primers) and vacuum again; yep, that was a good decision. Funny sound those little primers make when they hit the impeller.
Glad that the half-box of NEW small-rifle primers I lost in the shag carpet last month didn't 'hit wrong', but I didn't hear a single BANG! . so I'm Good!
What have I forgotten?
Well, I have not dusted the top of the refrigerator.
30 years my MIL came to visit us, and when she went back home after her 3-day visit she called my wife and said "Read Your Refrigerator".
SO my wife found a stepladder which would allow her to see the top of the refrigerator ... which neither of us had seen since we moved into the house.
In the accumulated dust, my MIL had written:
"DUST ME!"
And you wonder why I fear her?
(By the way, our Daughter thinks this is funny. She wasn't there. But she's still in my will, anyway.)
