He then went to his pickup, grabbed a semi-automatic pistol and pointed it at his approaching son who had gone outside to talk to him. The younger Oller retreated back into the residence and locked his door but later opened it after he believed his father had left the front porch.

Upon opening the door, however, he was confronted by his father, who again pointed the handgun at him. That triggered a fight, and the son was shot multiple times. He suffered wounds to his arm, shoulder and chest, John Kucera, the younger Oller's attorney, has said. He said Oller Jr. also suffered a head wound. The senior Oller suffered a gunshot wound to his leg during the struggle.

Do you suppose these guys were inner-city gang members or criminal drug dealers? That's who's doing all the gun violence, isn't it?

No, these are your typical gun owners who never were fit to own and operate guns.

MikeB

He then went to his pickup, grabbed a semi-automatic pistol and pointed it at his approaching son who had gone outside to talk to him. The younger Oller retreated back into the residence and locked his door but later opened it after he believed his father had left the front porch.

Upon opening the door, however, he was confronted by his father, who again pointed the handgun at him. That triggered a fight, and the son was shot multiple times. He suffered wounds to his arm, shoulder and chest, John Kucera, the younger Oller's attorney, has said. He said Oller Jr. also suffered a head wound. The senior Oller suffered a gunshot wound to his leg during the struggle.

Do you suppose these guys were inner-city gang members or criminal drug dealers? That's who's doing all the gun violence, isn't it?

No, these are your typical gun owners who never were fit to own and operate guns.

MikeB

The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.

This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

The conclusion: "The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year." 

What's your opinion?  Is that a riot, or what? Those of us who look at new reports of shootings can tell you that the ratio between improper gun use and proper gun use is, I don't know, what would you say it is? In the past I've put it at 100 to 1.  What do you think?

MikeB

The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.

This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

The conclusion: "The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year." 

What's your opinion?  Is that a riot, or what? Those of us who look at new reports of shootings can tell you that the ratio between improper gun use and proper gun use is, I don't know, what would you say it is? In the past I've put it at 100 to 1.  What do you think?

MikeB

via ABC News on the attempts of Mayor Gustavo Petro to do something about the murders in Bogota.

... an experimental ban on gun-wielding in public.


The only people authorized to carry weapons during the 90-day trial that began Wednesday are active and retired police and soldiers, bodyguards of diplomats, politicians, judges and prosecutors, armored car guards, gun club members and hunters.

If the experiment does produce a drop in Bogota's murder rate, which was 23.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, Petro said he will consider extending the ban.

Not everyone agrees:

Orlando Parada, a center-right politician on the city council, is skeptical about how effective the ban will be, saying the at least 160,000 registered weapons in Bogota are not the problem.


"It's not the definitive way to confront violence and insecurity in Bogota, because legal weapons only commit a small proportion of crimes" in the capital, Parada said.


There are no official estimates of how many illegal weapons exist in Bogota, although Petro said he believes the number easily exceeds the amount of legal weapons.

One of the detractors said it won't affect the criminals but it might help with the drunken-brawl-type shootings. 

Actually this is something I agree with. But I'd add to the drunken brawls, the road rage and some of the domestic violence. 

The pro-gun crowd will surely say the criminal shootings will increase because of all the good guys who are disarmed. If they're right, Bogota should soon look like some of those other Colombian cities or even Carracas.

Bogota's murder rate is low when compared with much of provincial Colombia, where violence persists in epidemic proportions, perpetrated by leftist rebels, far-right militias and drug traffickers.

In the southeastern Guaviare region, the murder rate is 101.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, while in Arauca, on the border with Venezuela, the rate is 95.7 per 100,000, according to Colombia's chief coroner's office.

As a country, Colombia's murder rate of 38.3 per 100,000 inhabitants for 2010 is far below such Latin American nations as Honduras and El Salvador, where it was 82.1 and 66, respectively, according to the United Nations.

It also was well below the 48 per 100,000 rate of Venezuela, but higher than Mexico's 18 per 100,000.

What do you think? Would these efforts by the mayor of Bogota have produce no good results or even make matters worse? Or will the murder rate go down, as they hope?

MikeB

via ABC News on the attempts of Mayor Gustavo Petro to do something about the murders in Bogota.

... an experimental ban on gun-wielding in public.


The only people authorized to carry weapons during the 90-day trial that began Wednesday are active and retired police and soldiers, bodyguards of diplomats, politicians, judges and prosecutors, armored car guards, gun club members and hunters.

If the experiment does produce a drop in Bogota's murder rate, which was 23.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, Petro said he will consider extending the ban.

Not everyone agrees:

Orlando Parada, a center-right politician on the city council, is skeptical about how effective the ban will be, saying the at least 160,000 registered weapons in Bogota are not the problem.


"It's not the definitive way to confront violence and insecurity in Bogota, because legal weapons only commit a small proportion of crimes" in the capital, Parada said.


There are no official estimates of how many illegal weapons exist in Bogota, although Petro said he believes the number easily exceeds the amount of legal weapons.

One of the detractors said it won't affect the criminals but it might help with the drunken-brawl-type shootings. 

Actually this is something I agree with. But I'd add to the drunken brawls, the road rage and some of the domestic violence. 

The pro-gun crowd will surely say the criminal shootings will increase because of all the good guys who are disarmed. If they're right, Bogota should soon look like some of those other Colombian cities or even Carracas.

Bogota's murder rate is low when compared with much of provincial Colombia, where violence persists in epidemic proportions, perpetrated by leftist rebels, far-right militias and drug traffickers.

In the southeastern Guaviare region, the murder rate is 101.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, while in Arauca, on the border with Venezuela, the rate is 95.7 per 100,000, according to Colombia's chief coroner's office.

As a country, Colombia's murder rate of 38.3 per 100,000 inhabitants for 2010 is far below such Latin American nations as Honduras and El Salvador, where it was 82.1 and 66, respectively, according to the United Nations.

It also was well below the 48 per 100,000 rate of Venezuela, but higher than Mexico's 18 per 100,000.

What do you think? Would these efforts by the mayor of Bogota have produce no good results or even make matters worse? Or will the murder rate go down, as they hope?

MikeB

Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote for the Detroit Free Press: 

So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona's duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn't a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people's will was overturned by a gun.

Here he offers this description of the problem:

At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

But we won't. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.

So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week -- three 9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.

And sadly, that, too, reflects the people's will.

I'm not sure who those lefty extremists he's talking about are. Certainly the position on this blog, and the others I know of, is much more reasonable than wanting to disarm EVERYONE. 

On the other hand I recognize the righty paranoia that says "any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters." I find that a fairly commonplace attitude on the pro-gun blogs.

My conclusion, unlike that of Mr. Pitts who has described an even-handed blaming of both extremes, is that the gun-rights advocates are mainly to blame. They block meaningful dialogue at every opportunity. They refuse to bend or compromise. They oppose laws likethe VA one-gun-a-month law which diminishes the gun flow into the criminal world.

MikeB

Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote for the Detroit Free Press: 

So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona's duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn't a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people's will was overturned by a gun.

Here he offers this description of the problem:

At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

But we won't. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.

So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week -- three 9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.

And sadly, that, too, reflects the people's will.

I'm not sure who those lefty extremists he's talking about are. Certainly the position on this blog, and the others I know of, is much more reasonable than wanting to disarm EVERYONE. 

On the other hand I recognize the righty paranoia that says "any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters." I find that a fairly commonplace attitude on the pro-gun blogs.

My conclusion, unlike that of Mr. Pitts who has described an even-handed blaming of both extremes, is that the gun-rights advocates are mainly to blame. They block meaningful dialogue at every opportunity. They refuse to bend or compromise. They oppose laws likethe VA one-gun-a-month law which diminishes the gun flow into the criminal world.

MikeB

The Times Dispatch reports

The House of Delegates is expected today to approve repealing the state's one-handgun-a-month law, with the state Senate likely to follow suit Thursday.

After significant debate Tuesday, legislation that would do away with the law — House Bill 940, carried by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William — advanced to its final reading on a voice vote.

Whenever I hear a politician arguing for gun rights I wonder if he's only doing it for the votes. I mean, in Virginia, it's popular to do that. Do you think Lingamfelter would be pushing the same thing if he were from New York or New Jersey?

He explains his rationale like this:

"We were the gun-running capital of the nation," he said. "Let's be serious — is one gun a month really an undue burden?"

Lingamfelter said the law now merely inconveniences law-abiding gun collectors, noting that federal law already prohibits the transfer of guns across state lines and adding that nothing prevents criminals from acquiring guns in "back alleys and through theft."

Of course, the good Delegate didn't mention that soon, in addition to limiting the bad guys to picking up guns in the "back alleys and through theft," the straw purchasing business will flourish again in the Old Dominion. 

This is freedom. This is America.

MikeB

The Times Dispatch reports

The House of Delegates is expected today to approve repealing the state's one-handgun-a-month law, with the state Senate likely to follow suit Thursday.

After significant debate Tuesday, legislation that would do away with the law — House Bill 940, carried by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William — advanced to its final reading on a voice vote.

Whenever I hear a politician arguing for gun rights I wonder if he's only doing it for the votes. I mean, in Virginia, it's popular to do that. Do you think Lingamfelter would be pushing the same thing if he were from New York or New Jersey?

He explains his rationale like this:

"We were the gun-running capital of the nation," he said. "Let's be serious — is one gun a month really an undue burden?"

Lingamfelter said the law now merely inconveniences law-abiding gun collectors, noting that federal law already prohibits the transfer of guns across state lines and adding that nothing prevents criminals from acquiring guns in "back alleys and through theft."

Of course, the good Delegate didn't mention that soon, in addition to limiting the bad guys to picking up guns in the "back alleys and through theft," the straw purchasing business will flourish again in the Old Dominion. 

This is freedom. This is America.

MikeB

The NRA, masters of the spin that they are, came out with an interesting connection. They linked the story of the woman who defended herself with a concealed carry gun and the inflammatory comments made by the sheriff, Chuck Wright, to the more recent Waffle House shooting in which another concealed carry gun owner supposedly saved the day. Meanwhile according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, there's been a "dramatic increase in Right-to-Carry permit applications." 

The problem with all that is this.  Startanburg is a violent and dangerous city, and not only because of criminals. During the same time that these two unrelated incidents of so-called legitimate DGUs took place, and the people are flocking to the gun shops motivated by fear and insecurity, there have been numerous improper uses of guns. The incidents of gun violence always outnumber those of legitimate DGUs.  In addition to that, each DGU contains some element of doubt as to whether it was really necessary or not, while each improper use of the gun is clearly and always improper.

Spartanburg, South Carolina is practically a household name among gun control enthusiasts. Even on this blog we've written about that fair city several times.  Two examples follow:

Last April, a lawful gun owners shot one and wounded another.

Last January, a 14-year-old used his birthday present to shoot his aunty.

What's your opinion? Is the NRA doing their usual thing, cherry picking a couple incidents while ignoring dozens of others?

MikeB

The NRA, masters of the spin that they are, came out with an interesting connection. They linked the story of the woman who defended herself with a concealed carry gun and the inflammatory comments made by the sheriff, Chuck Wright, to the more recent Waffle House shooting in which another concealed carry gun owner supposedly saved the day. Meanwhile according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, there's been a "dramatic increase in Right-to-Carry permit applications." 

The problem with all that is this.  Startanburg is a violent and dangerous city, and not only because of criminals. During the same time that these two unrelated incidents of so-called legitimate DGUs took place, and the people are flocking to the gun shops motivated by fear and insecurity, there have been numerous improper uses of guns. The incidents of gun violence always outnumber those of legitimate DGUs.  In addition to that, each DGU contains some element of doubt as to whether it was really necessary or not, while each improper use of the gun is clearly and always improper.

Spartanburg, South Carolina is practically a household name among gun control enthusiasts. Even on this blog we've written about that fair city several times.  Two examples follow:

Last April, a lawful gun owners shot one and wounded another.

Last January, a 14-year-old used his birthday present to shoot his aunty.

What's your opinion? Is the NRA doing their usual thing, cherry picking a couple incidents while ignoring dozens of others?

MikeB

The Times News reports 

Investigators report the 7-year-old boy was playing with his 4-year-old and 13-year-old brothers in a bedroom when the gun went off and struck the 7-year-old in the head.

According to investigators, the three boys thought the loaded weapon was a toy.

The unidentified boy was flown to UT with possibly life-threatening injuries.

Major Michelle Jones said the children reside at the home with their parents and grandparents and the gun was registered to a member of the household.

Don't you think it's funny the way gun-friendly news sources report these things as simple accidents, as if they could happen to anyone. And naturally the gun-friendly police in Tennessee report that "At this time, we have not gotten far enough into the investigation to determine if charges will be filed."

How about this for a plan. Every time a child gets ahold of a gun the owner of that gun goes immediately to jail. Then, the investigators can put together all the details for a judge to render the appropriate sentence.

MikeB

The Times News reports 

Investigators report the 7-year-old boy was playing with his 4-year-old and 13-year-old brothers in a bedroom when the gun went off and struck the 7-year-old in the head.

According to investigators, the three boys thought the loaded weapon was a toy.

The unidentified boy was flown to UT with possibly life-threatening injuries.

Major Michelle Jones said the children reside at the home with their parents and grandparents and the gun was registered to a member of the household.

Don't you think it's funny the way gun-friendly news sources report these things as simple accidents, as if they could happen to anyone. And naturally the gun-friendly police in Tennessee report that "At this time, we have not gotten far enough into the investigation to determine if charges will be filed."

How about this for a plan. Every time a child gets ahold of a gun the owner of that gun goes immediately to jail. Then, the investigators can put together all the details for a judge to render the appropriate sentence.

MikeB

Go Upstate.com reports suggested by one of our anonymous commenters, I suppose as an example of a legitimate DGU and to point out how much better off we are with concealed carry.

Two masked men had entered the restaurant with the intention of robbing it, and at least one of them was armed, authorities said.

A customer, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, thwarted the robbery by pulling his gun and attempting to hold the men until deputies arrived. When one of the men pointed his gun at the customer, the patron fired, killing the teenager.

Well, first of all, they always say "the bad guy pointed the gun me." I don't believe it. What often happens is the "good guy" shoots too quickly and afterwards decides to make the part up about pointing the gun in order to justify what he's done.

And in Spartanburg, South Carolina, what do you think the other customers are going to say? Do you think they'll tend to defend the dead black kid? I don't.

The problem with most DGUs is exactly this. Even the shooter is not sure if it was really necessary, at least in most cases. If he's honest about it, he must admit it's not possible to know the intentions of the armed robber. Blowing the guy away at the first opportunity and afterwards calling him names like "goblin" and "scumbag" is not the right behavior.

I picture these concealed carry guys in diners and shopping centers like their hunting counterparts in the woods. A black teenager waving a gun around is like a 10-point buck that suddenly appears 100 yards away. The only problem is the cops won't let them take a trophy for their wall at home.

What's your opinion? What percentage of legitimate DGUs do you think are really legitimate, read necessary?

MikeB

Go Upstate.com reports suggested by one of our anonymous commenters, I suppose as an example of a legitimate DGU and to point out how much better off we are with concealed carry.

Two masked men had entered the restaurant with the intention of robbing it, and at least one of them was armed, authorities said.

A customer, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, thwarted the robbery by pulling his gun and attempting to hold the men until deputies arrived. When one of the men pointed his gun at the customer, the patron fired, killing the teenager.

Well, first of all, they always say "the bad guy pointed the gun me." I don't believe it. What often happens is the "good guy" shoots too quickly and afterwards decides to make the part up about pointing the gun in order to justify what he's done.

And in Spartanburg, South Carolina, what do you think the other customers are going to say? Do you think they'll tend to defend the dead black kid? I don't.

The problem with most DGUs is exactly this. Even the shooter is not sure if it was really necessary, at least in most cases. If he's honest about it, he must admit it's not possible to know the intentions of the armed robber. Blowing the guy away at the first opportunity and afterwards calling him names like "goblin" and "scumbag" is not the right behavior.

I picture these concealed carry guys in diners and shopping centers like their hunting counterparts in the woods. A black teenager waving a gun around is like a 10-point buck that suddenly appears 100 yards away. The only problem is the cops won't let them take a trophy for their wall at home.

What's your opinion? What percentage of legitimate DGUs do you think are really legitimate, read necessary?

MikeB

via Forbes

published a fascinating article by Frank Miniter, who, as you can see by his bio, is completely unbiased and objective about the gun debate.

I am a bestselling author and a freelance journalist who concentrates on man’s struggle to keep the state in balance with the American dream. My latest book is Saving the Bill of Rights. I am also the author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. My website is www.frankminiter.com.

Here's the best part.

Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) explained that in 1959 some 70 percent of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. “We’ve been able to conclusively prove scientifically that, as John Lott wrote, more guns do equal less crime. Other factors include the fact that the number of hunters has actually risen in a number of states. Then you have returning servicemen and women who are staying with the shooting sports. Meanwhile, the advocacy of the NSSF, the NRA and other groups have shown that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of our freedom.”

Don't you just love that "conclusively prove scientifically" part?

MikeB

via Forbes

published a fascinating article by Frank Miniter, who, as you can see by his bio, is completely unbiased and objective about the gun debate.

I am a bestselling author and a freelance journalist who concentrates on man’s struggle to keep the state in balance with the American dream. My latest book is Saving the Bill of Rights. I am also the author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. My website is www.frankminiter.com.

Here's the best part.

Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) explained that in 1959 some 70 percent of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. “We’ve been able to conclusively prove scientifically that, as John Lott wrote, more guns do equal less crime. Other factors include the fact that the number of hunters has actually risen in a number of states. Then you have returning servicemen and women who are staying with the shooting sports. Meanwhile, the advocacy of the NSSF, the NRA and other groups have shown that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of our freedom.”

Don't you just love that "conclusively prove scientifically" part?

MikeB

The Washington Post reports on the appeals case ruling about this famous video.

A federal agent who accidentally shot himself while lecturing children on gun safety lost his appeal Tuesday in a lawsuit over release of the video that subjected him to ridicule on the Internet and late-night talk shows.

Lee Paige sued his employer, the Drug Enforcement Administration, after video of the 2004 accident in Florida appeared in the news and went viral on the Internet. The video shows Paige shooting himself in the leg just as he displays his firearm and tells a gathering of about 50 youth and their parents, “I’m the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to carry this Glock 40.”

It certainly is an embarrassing video, there's no denying that. But most telling was what the judge said.

“The widespread circulation of the accidental discharge video demonstrates the need for every federal agency to safeguard video records with extreme diligence in this Internet age of iPhones and YouTube with their instantaneous and universal reach,” the judges wrote.

You see how that works? It's not that the DEA needs to train its people better, or that arrogant cowboy-type gun owners need to be disarmed, it's that they need to hide their negligence better. The judge gave voice to the normally unspoken agreement among gun-rights folks to conceal their dangerous and reckless behavior lest it interfere with the agenda.

The agenda, of course, is to minimize restrictions as much as possible, which in turn allows for more incidents like this.  The judge and Lee Paige himself called it an "accident," you know one of those things that can happen to anybody.  He actually said that.

The truth is "accidents" like this don't HAPPEN to people. PEOPLE do negligent things with guns.

Isn't it funny how the pro-gun guys will so often accuse us of personifying the gun, they accuse us of forgetting it's an inanimate object, but then they excuse their own negligence by calling it an accident.

MikeB

The Washington Post reports on the appeals case ruling about this famous video.

A federal agent who accidentally shot himself while lecturing children on gun safety lost his appeal Tuesday in a lawsuit over release of the video that subjected him to ridicule on the Internet and late-night talk shows.

Lee Paige sued his employer, the Drug Enforcement Administration, after video of the 2004 accident in Florida appeared in the news and went viral on the Internet. The video shows Paige shooting himself in the leg just as he displays his firearm and tells a gathering of about 50 youth and their parents, “I’m the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to carry this Glock 40.”

It certainly is an embarrassing video, there's no denying that. But most telling was what the judge said.

“The widespread circulation of the accidental discharge video demonstrates the need for every federal agency to safeguard video records with extreme diligence in this Internet age of iPhones and YouTube with their instantaneous and universal reach,” the judges wrote.

You see how that works? It's not that the DEA needs to train its people better, or that arrogant cowboy-type gun owners need to be disarmed, it's that they need to hide their negligence better. The judge gave voice to the normally unspoken agreement among gun-rights folks to conceal their dangerous and reckless behavior lest it interfere with the agenda.

The agenda, of course, is to minimize restrictions as much as possible, which in turn allows for more incidents like this.  The judge and Lee Paige himself called it an "accident," you know one of those things that can happen to anybody.  He actually said that.

The truth is "accidents" like this don't HAPPEN to people. PEOPLE do negligent things with guns.

Isn't it funny how the pro-gun guys will so often accuse us of personifying the gun, they accuse us of forgetting it's an inanimate object, but then they excuse their own negligence by calling it an accident.

MikeB