This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Guns

  • GA Tech student stops home invasion

    Beretverde sends us today’s feel good story about a Georgia tech student who stopped a home invader with well-placed center-mass shot. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution;

    Atlanta police Capt. Adam Lee told the AJC that the three male Tech students were asleep inside their home on Curran Street off 10th Street about 5:30 a.m. Tuesday when an intruder broke through a front window of the house.

    After being awakened by the breaking glass, one of the residents, a first-year graduate student at Tech, grabbed a handgun and went to investigate, Lee said.

    Lee said that at some point, the intruder caused the student “to believe that they were in danger, and he shot the person one time in the chest.”

    The former intruder who will probably think twice next time is in the hospital. Hopefully, he’ll survive so that he can serve time and think about what he did, and it will be a painful life. Police aren’t sure if the intruder weilded a weapon, and they haven’t interviewed the student yet, who seems shook up about the shooting. Probably less so, than he might have felt if he hadn’t had the gun, though.

  • Guns on campus

    The folks at College Stats sent us a link to their report on the debate over allowing guns on campus being considered in ten states.

    Last year was a banner year for proponents of gun carrying on college campuses. No fewer than 23 state legislatures saw bills introduced that would allow either faculty or students, or both, to bring firearms onto school grounds. The vast majority of the lawmakers in these states declined to change their current laws on the subject. Rather than giving up the fight, supporters of college carry laws have been rejuvenated by recent school shootings and have brought the issue back around in 2012. In these 10 states across the country, the great debate rages on.

    States need to realize that criminals are already bringing guns on their campuses irrespective of the laws that are designed to prevent just that. They’re criminals, that’s what they do – break laws. Unfortunately, those laws also prevent the people who abide by the law from bringing guns on campus, so colleges are just like game preserves – a large area filled with defenseless potential victims. That’s what criminals are looking for.

  • Sunday feel-good story

    Cortillaen sends us a link to a Sunday feel good story about a 14-year-old in Phoenix, AZ who was watching his three elementary-school aged siblings when a woman began ringing his the doorbell at his home. He herded the younger kids upstairs and armed himself with the family firearm;

    When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

    The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

    He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

    The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away.

    I guess the part to really feel good about is the Phoenix police reaction to the shooting;

    [Phoenix police Officer James Holmes] hailed the teen’s actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.

    “The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family … but this young man did exactly what he should have done,” he said. “I’m not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted.”

    So, parents, make sure you train your kids to use your firearms, and train them when to use it. I was 14 when I got my first gun.

  • Deja Vu

    After Poetrooper’s article earlier today concerning “Fast and Furious”, I’m a bit hesitant to post this.  I generally try to stay mostly away from politics unrelated to the military here at TAH.  But today I feel compelled to make an exception.

    “I don’t give a shit what happens.  I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it – save the plan.”

    No, the above isn’t a quote from any official of the current Administration about “Fast and Furious”.  But it sounds like it could be.

    I doubt this is news to most TAH readers, but the current Administration is now claiming “executive privilege” regarding documents relating to “Fast and Furious”.

    I’m not going to debate the merits of “Fast and Furious”, or the possible motivations (political or otherwise) which led to that DOJ operation.  Nor am I going to opine on whether “Fast and Furious” was a good idea, or was executed competently.  I’ll leave that to others.

    But the claim of executive privilege for “Fast and Furious” is, well, IMO bullshit.  And it’s also highly dangerous bullshit.

    Under certain conditions executive privilege can indeed be legitimately invoked by the POTUS.  But it’s generally limited to matters of national security or diplomacy.  It can’t be invoked to hide matters that are merely criminal or embarrassing.  No Administration should ever invoke a claim of executive privilege for such reasons.

    But the current Administration has yet to make the case why Fast and Furious qualifies for a claim of executive privilege.  And absent such justification, they’re essentially making a claim that all, regardless of political leanings, should find deeply disturbing and dangerous.  Essentially, they’re arguing for unlimited application of executive privilege – that is, they are arguing that executive privilege should be allowed whenever desired by the POTUS and/or senior Administration officials, and about matters that do not involve national security or diplomacy.  Because Fast and Furious is not a national security or diplomatic matter.  It’s a law enforcement operation gone awry.

    Allowing such unrestricted claims of executive privilege essentially places a serving POTUS above the law.  And if extended to other senior officials, it would similarly render serving senior officials above the law as well.

    In short, it would render the President a King, answerable to no one, and his senior officials untouchable nobility.  That’s not something I ever want to see in this nation.  Do you?

    And in case you’re wondering:  yes, you’ve indeed heard the above quote before.  That was Nixon – speaking to some of his senior advisors about Watergate.

    Nixon’s claim of executive privilege was a transparent attempt to obstruct investigation of Watergate.  It was absolutely wrong, and was slam-dunked by the SCOTUS.  And unless the current administration makes a far better case than it has to date, the same needs to happen today.

     

  • Brady Score – Meaningful Metric, or Misleading BS?

    This article by Jonn and the comments to same got me to thinking about the subject of gun control again.  It also reminded me of something I originally wrote a couple of years ago for a site that no longer exists and which wasn’t published before the site folded.  And  I also never got around to sending it elsewhere for publication.  So here goes.

    Fair warning:  this article is a bit longish, and there’s some math involved.  (smile)

    Introduction

    Fairly recently (late 2009/early 2010) the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (hereafter referred to the “Brady Campaign”) published its evaluation of US state firearms laws. It defined in this evaluation a measure it called the “Brady State Scorecard.”  This Brady State Scorecard yields a single numerical value for the state’s firearms laws – the state’s “Brady Score”.  The higher a state’s Brady Score, the more restrictive that state’s firearms laws.

    The Brady Campaign’s thesis is that laws restricting gun and ammunition purchase and ownership promote public safety, presumably by reducing gun-related crime.  They’ve been working to promote more restrictive firearms laws for literally decades.

    However, with the introduction of the Brady Score the Brady Campaign has allowed a test of their thesis. This article will do exactly that.

    Specifically, this article will provide a statistical test indicating whether there is reasonable evidence for a direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and a state’s overall murder rate, a state’s  firearm murder rate, and that state’s percentage of murders committed using firearms – or, in plain terms, whether gun control works to reduce gun violence.  If there is indeed a strong a cause and effect relationship between restrictive firearms laws (as measured by the Brady Score) and lowered gun violence, that should be both apparent and obvious on examination of the data.

    The Brady Campaign – Background

    The history and mission the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is illustrative. Here is the Brady Campaign’s history: (more…)

  • Crime down & gun sales up

    My new crush at the Washington Times, Emily Miller, writes today about the distinct intersection of a falling rate of violent crimes in the country and proliferation of legal gun ownership;

    Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011.

    [Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association] pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.

    Yeah, gee, I wonder why the Brady folks don’t have a comment. But this is why I have a crush on Ms. Miller, it’s paragraphs like this;

    Mr. Obama could honestly take credit for this jobs program, economic boost and the reduction in violent crime that has followed the spike in gun ownership on his watch. Instead, he’s silent about his greatest positive accomplishment.

  • I don’t condone it, but I understand it

    Tman sends us a link to the story of a Fort Leonard Wood First Sergeant who cured a young man of his hormone overload when the gentleman showed up at the first sergeant’s house at 1:30 in the morning to pick up the first sergeant’s 15-year-old daughter for a date;

    According to court records, [William James Bellomy, 40] was at his home alone on the 26000 grid of Stunning Lane on Wednesday morning while his daughter was in a Springfield hospital for unrelated reasons. At 12:30 a.m., his daughter’s cell phone received a text message from the man asking Bellomy’s daughter “to come ‘chill’ with him for a while.”

    Since Bellomy’s daughter wasn’t home, he replied, according to court records, that the man should come for a 1:30 a.m. pickup.

    “When (the man) pulled into the driveway and seen William (Bellomy), he backed out and started to pull back into the drive and that’s when William (Bellomy) stated he fired one round from his hand gun into (the man’s) vehicle,” according to the report filed by the sheriff’s deputy.

    Bellomy’s bullet struck the vehicle “in the rear door on the passenger side, going through the door and into the interior of the vehicle and was located behind the front passenger seat on the floor of the vehicle,” according to the deputy’s report. The man successfully fled from Stunning Lane and drove to the Buckhorn Shell gas station, where he called for help at 1:52 a.m. and met with the sheriff’s deputy.

    As the father of three previously 15-year-old daughters, I completely understand the urge to ventilate a man old enough to drive a car who showed up at oh-dark-thirty to “chill” with one of them, but in this case, I think the police might have only got me on charges of brandishing. I’m sure there are still a large number of young men in Oswego County, NY who get a chill up their spines at the mere mention of my name.

  • Today’s feel good story

    Chief Tango sends us a link to a story from North Carolina that should make your heart sing about a store owner who dispatched two thieves who had beat him unmercifully with a gun he kept under his counter;

    “They beat him down to the floor,” Webb said. “It was at that point where the store owner reached under the counter, while lying on the floor, for a weapon he kept there. He fired a shot at one of the assailants, striking him in the abdomen.”

    Despite the bullet wound, Webb said that suspect was able to exit the store.

    “At that point the second suspect was at or near the door and pointed his weapon at the store owner,” Webb said. “The store owner then fired three shots at that suspect.”

    Webb said by the time the owner exited his store he discovered one of the suspects lying in the parking lot.

    Police later found found the second spirited youngster about 150 yards away in the woods.

    In a later article, it’s reported that the two were brothers;

    Gates County Sheriff Ed Webb confirmed the identities of the two suspects Wednesday afternoon, reporting they were 20-year-old Eddie Felton and his 17-year-old brother, Quentin, both of the Winfall community.

    Brother together for ever. What could be a happier story? Well, the store owner was briefly hospitalized for his injuries, but he’s been released. See? It’s better for everyone now.

    Authorities say they are looking in to whether the suspects are related to a string of other robberies in the area, though reports have not yet detailed the suspects’ descriptions.

    Whether they were involved in the other crimes or not, I’ll bet misbehavior in that neighborhood falls off significantly.