Lawful Gun Owners Turned Bad

GoErie.com published an editorial by Pat Howard, which I found very interesting.

Jayson Sack had the bad luck to go roll up his car windows -- sprinkling rain was forcing his family's Saturday evening picnic inside -- as a Saturn sedan came rolling across East 20th Street. A witness recalled Sack yelling at the driver to slow down.

The bad luck was that the Saturn was driven by a 22-year-old cop wannabe with an attitude, a criminal justice degree and a .357 Magnum tucked in his pants. Trouble waiting to happen, in other words.

Atkin got out of the car, pointed that pistol and snuffed the life of a 30-year-old father of two who loved sports and hot cars. A life that could have continued on if only Atkin had done the same.

Reports like this take on a greater significance when told by gun owners. For one thing, this shows that not all gun owners are of the passionate variety who blindly defend guns at every opportunity.

I'm a gun owner myself, and I harbor mixed feelings about the limits of gun rights and a general skepticism about gun control. But if I have a soft spot for anti-gun arguments, it has something to do with a young guy driving off to visit his mom on a spring evening with a large-caliber handgun stuffed in his shorts.

Joel Atkin was carrying that pistol legally, right up until he used it to murder a man in the street for no reason. That's at the heart of the what-ifs in this case.

How many gun owners do you think "have a soft spot for anti-gun arguments?" How common do you think that is?

Mr. Howard mentioned that the problem is when anger and guns get together. I suppose he's talking about a certain type of anger, the kind that becomes uncontrollable. How many people suffer from that, do you think? Would the percentage be the same for gun owners?

In my previous attempt to answer that I placed the level at 1%, which I should add was a low ball conservative figure. Nationwide it's believed to be much higher. They call it IED, Intermittent Explosive Disorder.

What's your opinion? Is something wrong when people have to be so fearful of confrontation that they're reluctant to say something when offended lest they get shot for their trouble? Is this an undesirable side effect of the gun movement? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Glenn Beck: Guns Save Lives

Did Senator Karen Johnson say there has never been an incident of misuse by a CCW permit holder in Arizona?

The Treason of Rush Limbaugh

One of our favorite blog friends, Man With a Muckrake wrote a wonderful post about the incredible phenomenon of guys like Rush Limbaugh and their audience.

My thesis is this: Limbaugh and propagandists like him prey on the fucked-up minds of American men in order to use these men to destroy the unity and cohesiveness of this nation. Limbaugh ought to be arrested, tried and hung for treason.

Those to whom I refer with the F-U-M are that miserable knot of Americans who cling to stereotypes of the past and refuse to see others as equal to themselves. As Orsen Wells said, ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They are, simply put, angry men looking to displace their anger onto others. America is plagued with millions of these angry men. It is, perhaps, epidemiological. Many of these men also carry weapons.. Weapons make them feel safer. So does yelling and demeaning chiding.

What's your opinion? What do you think motivates Limbaugh and the others to do what they do? Are they patriots in your opinion, as they claim? Are they showmen doing what they do for the ratings? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Why Concealed Carry is Useless

This is what happened to me yesterday.

While walking in our little town, holding my 6-year-old by the hand, we stopped to look at an outdoor fish pond through the hedges of one of our neighbors. Enjoying a sunny moment of watching the koi fish, or whatever they were, I became aware of three young men approaching from behind. Out of the corner of my eye I could see they were a little rough looking, perhaps 20-something immigrant-construction-worker types. The problem is although they are generally hard-working and pose no threat, they're almost indistinguishable from their Romanian or Albanian co-nationals who commit some of the violent crime we do have around here.

If I'd been armed, what would have been the proper next action? Reach under my coat to take hold the gun and prepare to draw? But even that wouldn't have been enough in the three seconds it took for them to reach us and pass on the narrow sidewalk. If they'd been predators, even with my hand on the gun, they'd easily have had the upper hand.

So, for safety's sake, should I have pulled the gun on them in a pre-emptive defensive move? No, of course not, that would have been too much, especially in hind-sight knowing they indeed meant no harm.

The point is, based on this and numerous, almost daily experiences like it, I understand that concealed carry is not the responsible, protect-your-family thing it's so often described as. In most situations the gun would do no good whatever and often great harm.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Washington Man Cleared of Gun Charges

Seattlepi.com reports on the Longview man who was cleared of gun charges.

LONGVIEW, Wash. -- A Longview man who pulled a gun on bouncers at a local bar has been found not guilty of second-degree assault.

A jury determined that 29-year-old Brian Adam Barnd-Spjut acted in self-defense on the night of March 28.

A security video showed bouncers from Kesler's Bar and Grill hauling the man down the bar's hallway toward a back alley. When thrust into an alley, he spun around and pointed the gun at three bouncers and the bar manager.

Barnd-Spjut, who has a concealed weapons permit, says he displayed the gun because he feared the bouncers would beat him up.

I don't know about anybody else, but I've never seen bouncers take someone out to the back alley by force unless that person was doing some serious acting out in the bar. So, is it safe to assume there was some altercation inside the place before Brian Adam Barnd-Spjut had to protect himself with the gun? Would that have anything to do with this, do you think?

Is this case an example of why the law permitting concealed carry in bars is good? What if he'd shot and killed one of the bouncers? Would that have been justified? Is fear of a beating a good enough reason to kill someone? Is fear of a beating a good enough reason to draw the gun? I didn't think the 4 Rules contained one about preventing a beating or keeping the bouncers at bay. I mean, how far are we going to stretch the "lethal threat" excuse?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Meteorite Show in Arizona

Kold.com reports on the largest meteorite show in Arizona history.

Tucson, AZ (KOLD) - The Lunar and Planetary Laboratory will hold an exhibition on the U of A campus which boosts the largest collection of Arizona meteorites in a single place. The exhibition is free to the public and will be held on January 30th in the Kuiper Space Science Building from 6 to 9 PM.

Since 1891, more than 95 separately classified meteorites have been found in Arizona. The goal of the laboratory is to display at least one piece from each meteorite found, and to do this they will be getting help from private individuals and other institutions.

What this means, of course, is the possibility of being struck by a meteorite is much more likely than previously thought. When they say "separately classified meteorites," that's just what they mean. Many of those 95 fragmented into many smaller pieces just prior to impact.

What's your opinion? Is it responsible to take no precautions against an eventuality which is as potentially devastating as being hit by a meteorite? Wouldn't this fall under the purview of the manly head-of-household who is generally the principal bread-winner and does all the driving on family outings? What do you think? Certainly women and children shouldn't have to worry about stuff like this?

Please leave a comment.

The Death Penalty in Mongolia

Catholic News reports on the complete moratorium of capital punishment in Mongolia.

Tsakhia Elbegdorj says it degrades Mongolia's dignity. He plans to commute the sentence of people on death row.

Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj has announced a moratorium on the death penalty, and has called for its abolition.

Mr Elbegdorj told parliament that such punishment degraded Mongolia's dignity and that he would commute the sentence of death row inmates.

In the land of Genghis Khan who imposed discipline by putting people to death, the president wants a moratorium on executions because the “majority of the world's countries have chosen to abolish the death penalty. We should follow this path," he told lawmakers.

The president said he would start at once. “From tomorrow, I'll pardon those on death row. I suggest commuting the death penalty to a 30-year severe jail sentence.”

It's often said that the United States has a history of violence, you know, the revolutionary war period and the cowboy-gun-slinger period a century later. But Mongolia really has it, going back nearly a millennium. In the land of Genghis Khan, you might think violence is in their genes. Yet, even they're taking the cue from other "enlightened" societies on the issue of executing their own.

China holds the unenviable title as the world’s top executioner in 2008 with 1,718 people put to death. That is more than half of the 2,390 executions carried out in the world that year.

Altogether 93 per cent of all executions occur in five countries. In addition to China, the list includes Iran (346), Saudi Arabia (102), the United States (37) and Pakistan (36).

Everyone knows the arguments for and against the death penalty. But, how about adding the one about the company we keep by continuing this barbaric practice so fraught with problems and complications.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.