Category: Guns

A number of readers sent us links to the story of the gun buy back in Minneapolis last weekend. The city allocated $25,000 for the event and they went through it within a couple of minutes according to witnesses.

I showed up at the E. 38th st. fire station at 12:30. Incompetence is the word of the day. About 15 people with guns in line not moving. The cops said they were out of gift cards and more were on the way. A half dozen guys had been waiting two hours for cards so apparently they only brought enough for a half hour of turn-ins. About 12:45 they said no more cards were coming and we could either sign up to have payment mailed to us or just give up the guns for nothing.

I was at the south location. I got there early and was the third person in line. If that stack of 25 dollar cards was all they had I’m not surprised they ran out, it was probably less than five grand.

I stood there for those 2 hrs talking to the officers and they didn’t know the rules so the first few people had no limits enforced. The officers didn’t care about any of this and made plenty of jokes about how silly it was. A guy turned in a homemade slide fire 12 ga. made out of pipe and a 2×4. The officers thought it was hilarious.

Yeah, the Minnesota Gun Owner Caucus swears that the police bought the thing pictured above for $100. I won’t be surprised if it proven to be false, but it makes for a nice story. At least it wasn’t a rocket launcher (I’m looking at you, Los Angeles).

They took four from me including an “AR” for $300 … a Charter Arms AR-7 parts gun with a stripped barrel nut 😀

The cops there did a great job. No issues at all except for a late start.

Every single person in line was one of us

From the Fox News link;

“I just don’t feel that a criminal is going to come up to a fire department with a bunch of police around it and turn in a gun,” he said.

Paul Joat, an area gun collector, told The Star Tribune he bought two weapons on the street, ostensibly offering the sellers a better deal than the city could.

“A lot of what I’m seeing is gun nuts turning in their guns for more than they’re worth,” he said.

I guess gun buy backs qualify as “doing something” about gun violence and it’s the least intrusive anti-Second Amendment thing that the government can do.

Besides, after they disable all of the guns, the police are donating them to artists who can beautify our world with their creations. Or probably something more offensive.

The Chicago Tribune noticed that August 2016 is the deadliest month for Chicagoans in almost two decades with more than 2800 gunshot victims of whom 487 were killed. It seems to be a national trend;

Chicago has a lower homicide rate than many other U.S. cities that are smaller in population. But this year, the city has recorded more homicides and shooting victims than New York City and Los Angeles combined, even though the two cities are larger than Chicago’s population of roughly 2.6 million.

New York, with more than three times the population of Chicago, has recorded 760 shooting victims and logged 222 homicides, according to NYPD crime statistics through Aug. 21. In Los Angeles, a city of about 4 million, 176 people have been slain and 729 people shot, according to LAPD crime data through Aug. 20.

WGN reports that just last weekend 67 Chicagoans were shot, 11 died from their wounds.

Apparently, a military-aged American is safer in uniform in Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan fighting ISIS than living in inner-city America. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles also have the strictest gun control in the country reinforcing the old saw that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And the rest of us can’t protect ourselves from those outlaws.

So when are we going to have a discussion about gun control that highlights these shining examples?

One of our friends, Scott Albright, was Johnny-on-the-spot a few months ago when two brothers, Cameron Pearson and Kyle Pearson, were wrestling over a stolen gun. Scott was working in a nearby gun store that he owned at the time when he heard a gun shot ring out. KMOV tells the rest of the story;

Albright said he saw Pearson swinging a gun before he drew Sumner’s gun, put both hands on it and pointed it at Kyle, according to the motion. Audio from video surveillance captured Albright demanding Kyle to, “Drop the gun! Drop the gun!”.

The physical fight between the brothers continued as both of them attempted to gain control of the gun. Albright said as soon as the brothers hit the ground in their battle, he took protective cover behind a Jeep Liberty vehicle and peeked around the automobile and saw the gun pointed straight at him, according to court documents.

Baits said she commanded Albright’s attention and told him the two men on the ground were her brothers. She, too, yelled at both of them to stop and let go of the gun. Mohan said several people were yelling at the brothers to drop the gun.

More audio from surveillance footage reveals baits yelling “No, please do not shoot them. They are both my brothers. Don’t.”

During a heated conversation with Baits, Albright said another shot was fired from the gun being fought over. He said the gun was then pointed at him, according to the judge’s motion.

Two witnesses agreed that the gun was pointed at Albright. However, Baits said the gun was pointed at her while she stood next to Albright.

It was then that Albright said Kyle threatened to shoot him and Albright fired his gun and struck both brothers, according to court documents.

Cameron Pearson was killed in the exchange and his brother, Kyle Pearson is still recovering from his wounds. Albright’s trial was on Friday and he was cleared of the charges. The judge wrote;

The Commonwealth attempts to make much of Albright’s alleged lack of a right to pursue; however, he clearly was lawfully on the Premises and had no duty to retreat. The gunshot and gun battled unquestionably impinged upon his person, Sumner, his shop, other shops, and other persons. The law does not require Albright to cower in his store, pray that the shots will not penetrate, and passively hope that the gunfight will not hurt him and others. Likewise, it does not mandate that Albright retreat from the Premises.

* * * * *

Albright did not create this situation and did not control it. Pearson put this situation in motion. The Decedent’s behavior may have been undertaken in an effort to deescalate the danger; it may, however, have escalated it. Albright was not required to turn tail and run. Likewise, the law does not mandate that he become paralyzed with fear and refrain from acting in the hopes that the smaller, unknown, and unarmed brother would save the day. As a combat paratrooper and gun expert, Albright recognized the danger to himself and others. He had already spent a large portion of his life protecting others. He reacted to the circumstance in which he found himself and acted to protect himself and others from the unfolding, and chaotic, lawlessness. He is privileged to do so.

* * * * *

Finally, the Commonwealth has submitted no proof that Albright used excessive force. Indeed, he returned the clear and undisputed use of deadly force with deadly force. In so doing, he was compliant with Kentucky law. The Commonwealth opines that Albright’s use of force may have endangered himself, other patrons, the Sister, Waits, Sumner, Denton, Mohan, or Fenogio. In hindsight, it clearly did not. However, no hindsight is required to know with certainty that Pearson’s and the Decedent’s conduct clearly did endanger others.

* * * * *

Wherefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Defendant, William Scott Albright, to dismiss is granted. The indictment against him is dismissed with prejudice. There being no just cause for delay, this Order is final and appealable.

Of course, according to the linked article, Albright’s troubles aren’t over. The Pearson family claims that they are filing a wrongful death lawsuit against him. The prosecutor is appealing the judge’s decision, too.

I stand corrected; We’re told that the family is filing a lawsuit against Scott, but it’s not a wrongful death suit (apparently in Kentucky Albright is immune from that after the judge’s decision). We’re also told that the prosecutor isn’t filing an appeal – this particular journalist is the only one who thinks that the prosecutor will file an appeal.

University of Pittsburgh researchers partnered with Pittsburgh police to track guns used in their community to commit crimes and they discovered that more than 80% of legal gun owners just don’t commit gun-related crimes, according to the Washington Post;

They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime.

[…]

The top-line finding of the study — that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners — reinforces a common refrain among gun rights advocacy groups. They argue that since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.

Of course they don’t discuss the number of guns that went into the hands of criminals through private sales or gun shows. But the FBI interviewed criminals a few years back and determined that about 1% of crimes were committed with guns that came from those sources. In this study, the researchers examined 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.

The study does paint gun owners as an irresponsible bunch – apparently we’re sloppy with storage of our firearms making it easy to steal from us. We’re also sloppy in reporting the loss to law enforcement. So that’s where the Washington Post sees it’s opportunity to regulate gun owners based on this research.

But Fabio’s research suggests that this strict dichotomy between “good guys” and “bad guys” isn’t necessarily helpful for figuring out how to keep “good” guns — those purchased legally — from getting into “bad” hands. And there may be modest, non-burdensome ways to help keep guns in the hands of the good guys.

For example, they like DC’s law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons within ten days – for whatever good that would do. The police find it difficult to find stolen cars, let alone handguns.

A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.

The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they’re not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.

So, the Post wants to be able to track guns – Congress should mandate a federal database of guns sales. Another useless boondoggle that will do nothing to prevent crime. Like the guy in the TV commercials that “monitors” bank robberies but doesn’t stop bank robberies.

Some of you folks sent me a link to an article written by John S. Butler in The State entitled “I know assault weapons – and you shouldn’t have one“. Butler claimed to be a Vietnam veteran who had experience with “assault weapons”, whatever an assault weapon is these days.

I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.

Well, I’m happy to report that Butler is who he says he is. He was in Vietnam from November 1967 – November 1968 and he served with the 3/34 FA which provided indirect fire support to the brown water Riverines in the Mekong Delta region, according to one unit historian.

Now that we’ve established his truthfulness, which I’m embarrassed that we had to do, let’s look at his words;

Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.

Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.

I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?

The term “assault weapons” is just a word that people use to scare other people with. I own modern sporting rifles that have the accoutrements that have been determined by politicians to be features of “assault weapons”. I also have bolt-action rifles with the same accoutrements, that were assault rifles in their day, but are no longer considered such. I have a rifle which is bolt action that has a muzzle brake and a box magazine which will punch a fist-sized hole in your chest at more than 1500 meters. At ranges under a thousand meters, it will penetrate body armor. I’d consider that to be much more dangerous than anything anyone else would call an “assault rifle”. Needless to say, it’s fun to shoot, too.

In the hammer/nail comment above – I, too, have a concealed weapon permit, I use it everyday where it’s legal. I’ve never found a nail upon which to use my hammer, though.

I am an infantry combat veteran with two decades of carrying an M16 nearly every day, but I don’t think that my opinion on the issue of the Second Amendment has any more weight than anyone else. We’re all American citizens. People who have no experience with firearms have no place in the discussion, and they prove their unworthiness in that regard everyday in the media, but there are people with much more experience than me who never served a day in the military – their opinion is valid, too.

While I agree that untrained people probably shouldn’t own modern sporting rifles, untrained drivers shouldn’t drive high-performance automobiles on the Autobahn, either, but it happens every day. Who am I to force my common sense on the inexperienced?

By the way, my M16 had a “full auto” feature, and that made it an “assault rifle”. The weapons that Mr Butler is talking about don’t have the “full auto” select, so they’re not really the same weapon he carried in Vietnam, or the one that I carried for two decades. They only look alike.