In Support of Portantino's Open Carry Rifle Ban
And why I wish everyone would keep their triggers at home
ARLINGTON, VA - APRIL 19: (FILE PHOTO) A man carries a rifle as gun rights groups gather at Gravelly Point across the Potomac River from the nation's capital for an "Open Carry Rally" April 19, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision June 28, 2010 that constitutional protections for Second Amendment rights extended to cities and states, effectively voiding a Chicago city law banning handguns. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Photos (1)
Photos
What do I find scary in Altadena? Fast traffic on dark roads, power lines in a windstorm, the cello-packed seafood at Ralph’s. Hot dry days when the mountains are full of brown and brittle brush -- yes, fire scares me.
But I’m not afraid of people; neighbors or strangers with whom I share the streets, parks, shops, gas stations. Whatever personal safety questions cross my mind, owning a gun, much less carrying a gun, doesn’t offer much of an answer. I suppose I could shoot the Ralph’s salmon, but for heaven’s sakes, it’s been dead far too long already.
Anthony Portantino has introduced a bill to ban the open-carry of rifles in public. This seems like such a reasonable bill, such a no-brainer, I’ve been nonplussed by the sturm and drang emanating from the gun advocate corner. I wonder about all these folks who are afraid to leave the house unescorted, without a lethal weapon by their side. I wonder what extra baggage, besides that rifle and ammo clip, they might be carrying. Murder doesn’t even make the top 10 causes of death in the US. In fact, murder at the hand of another doesn’t even beat suicide, and neither comes close to death by accident and death by disease.
With all the noise and obfuscation, it might have escaped notice that the proposed bill has absolutely no impact on one’s ability to keep a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home.
Correct me if I’m wrong (just don’t do it in all caps), but it’s pretty darned easy to buy a firearm for the home. You don’t have to prove much of anything, other than citizenship or thereabouts, and enough good sense or good luck to have kept your nose clean, legally speaking. Other than that, you don’t need any special training, just the ability to cool your heels for a brief period until the permit arrives in the mail.
As far as I can tell, there’s not even a minimum vision requirement.
But some gun advocates feel their rights are in danger if they’re not able to flash their guns and ammo in public. Well, this member of the public feels her rights are very much in danger if they’re able to do so. And not just because of the intimidation factor. There is no guarantee that whoever carries a gun has any sense of aim, any sense of how of when to use a lethal weapon, or any sense, period.
Much as some folks would like to believe we’re all still living on the OK Corral, we’re not. Things have changed, and the hands on the clock are no longer stuck at high noon.
I was about to say I’d continue to fight against concealed weapons and open carry, but then, I haven’t really been fighting it. I just do what takes the least amount of effort and cast a vote for any politician who agrees with me; who agrees it’s for the greater good if Trigger stays home at the stable.
If you’re really concerned about personal safety, stop smoking and texting while driving. And here’s a cheap fix: buy some plastic appliqués. In the U.S., the odds of death by an accidental fall are far, far greater than the odds of losing your life at the hands of another human being. So keep an eye on that most slippery of characters--your bathtub, as you step in and step out. Don't trust it for a second.
What do you think of the attempts to ban open carry?
Tell us in the comments.
Eric
4:34 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
To ascribe gun-owners' advocacy of legal carry to their desire to "flash their guns and ammo in public" is a foolish and ignorant oversimplification. I am no gun nut, but I AM a solo backpacker fond of remote and/or off-season trips. Open carry bans that people like you envision preventing people from parading around a mall with a gun also often prevent preople like me from responsibly carrying a weapon in areas where carrying is quite justifiable.
PB
6:22 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Karen - I think you are missing the key point here. We have the 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms, unimpeded by politicians. Politicians love to pass laws, continually restricting our rights. You may not like to see an open carry citizen and that is your right. It is (currently) everyone's right to open carry a rifle (the last bill for open carry hand guns is being challenged in the courts right now and will hopefully be overturned). You criticize and cast aspersions on anyone who would want to open carry and start off by saying this makes you fearful. This makes me wonder about your sensibility. Only law abiding citizens are open carrying. The thugs and thieves will continue to conceal their illegal weapons. I personally do not have any desire to open carry but I do not agree to my rights being limited on where and how I can transport my firearms. You may be content with the government continually restricting your rights but many of us are not.
Baird Tarr
7:12 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Karen- the Open Carry movement was to protest the inability of regular citizens to obtain CCW Permits. California Police officials have a discretionary issue system that allows them to reward those with influence or who make significant campaign donations to elections. Open UNLOADED carry is a first ammendment issue to bring attention to the CORRUPT nature of the whole system and those who cannot participate. I am one of those.
I'm truly sorry that my carry of a weapon(unloaded) in public frightens you. You have a right to be frightened. Does your right to be frightened trump my right to the First or Second ammendments? Do cops(who carry loaded firearms)frighten you?
What frightens me is people who think their unjustified fears somehow overrides my basic needs of personal safety and security.
doris finch
7:46 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Ah Karin, you have now become The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest [it's a Scandinavian thing], but you must have already taken that into account. The whole issue is not about wisdom or rationality, or respect for your fellows who share your space, it is emotional and ultimately about the big Me. Just to stir up more dust, I might add that the Ammendment so often cited includes the words "well regulated", which allows a lot of interpretation to government oversight.
PB
8:21 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Doris - The Supreme Court has ruled a few times that "well regulated" does not imply regulation by the government. So your interpretation is not supported by the case law that goes back over 100 years on this subject. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[113] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Jarhead1982
3:03 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.
original proposed draft of the right to keep and bear arms of the BILL of RIGHTS (17 TH of 20 amendments)
on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library Santa Ana, California
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual.
Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?
Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!
Jarhead1982
3:04 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Maybe Doris can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)
Yet Doris now infers the dependent clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it Doris, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.
Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.
Jim In Houston
8:52 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Doris, she may have kicked a hornet's nest but she did it for selfish, fearful, and emotionally riddled reasons...no facts involved.
Not something to be proud of in my book.
Perry Kneisel
9:23 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Karin, you obviously have never purchased a firearm in CA. Once one selects a gun, one must complete a veritable mountain of paperwork: a Federal Form 4473 with a plethora of questions, a CA DROS (Dealer Record of Sale) completed, payment of fees for the DROS, undergo a NICS background check, and wait 10 days to pick up your purchase. Open carry is really an attempt to bring to the fore the ridiculous and arbitrary rules for getting a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit. The courts in CA have indicated that lack of being able to qualify for a CCW is not a violation of the Second Amendment because the law allows for open carry unloaded. Frankly, I'd much rather have law abiding citizens who undergo training carry concealed rather than folks walking around carrying openly. If the rationale of the court is that open carry is legal therefore no one needs a CCW then our wonderful left wingnut legislature makes open carry illegal, the court's rationale is no longer valid and CCW becomes more important and a legal right under the Second Amendment to not only keep but BEAR arms.
Perry in Redondo Beach
JE
9:33 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
More ignorance on the part of journalists, especially one that writes about the outdoors and gardening in Altadena. Karin, I guess you've failed to realize that violent crime can happen anywhere at any time. Gun owners know this as a fact and we fight for the right to be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones not just inside of our homes, but outside as well. It seems to me that every anti-gunner has the O.K. Corral mindset. If I remember correctly the O.k. Corral was fought between the Earp brothers, who just happened to be in law enforcement at the time and known murderers. I certainly don't remember reading anywhere that normal law abiding citizens took part in that shoot out. Simply put Karin, stick to your gardening and animal reporting and you won't show your lack of intelligence by not knowing the facts. Not every gun owner is a criminal.
Laura Monteros
10:09 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thanks, Karen. I haven't read the law so I don't know how far it goes, but I doubt that it would prohibit hunting. As for carrying a gun for protection from wild animals in the wilderness--it seems you'd need a pretty big gun to shoot any animal big enough not to run away when you wave your arms (bears and cougars) and that's illegal anyway in CA, isn't it?
Natalie
10:37 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
So the insecure folks who feel they need a gun for safety wherever they go carry it unloaded? How does that work when you're threatened? Oh wait, don't attack/shot/bite me until I get my bullets out my backpack and load my gun. Hey grizzly, I told you to WAIT!
I'm a single woman who hikes in remote country on my own. The thought of meeting someone carrying a gun worries me very much. And shooting at a wild animal if threatened will only enrage them unless it's an immediate clean kill - which it usually isn't. Wounded mountain lions, bears and even humans can inflict a lot of damage in the minutes before their life ebbs away. By the way, the chances of an adult being attacked by a wild animal in our local area are extremely remote. I've met a bear at close quarters and it was terrified of me.
There are many more things I want to say, but Karin has said it so much better than I can. I hope she'll be treated with respect in these comments.
Dan Abendschein
11:06 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
On the issue of hiking with a gun, please read about this tragic case (http://www.azcentral.com/community/swvalley/articles/2009/05/16/20090516hikershooter0516.html). Wherever you stand on the issue it should give you a lot to think about: if you shoot someone out in the woods with no witnesses, it may be hard to for investigators to determine whether the shooting was justified or not. It may be hard for you to even go over in your head and figure out whether it was the right thing or not. I've read about this case for years and I have no idea whether the shooting was justified or not, and I have no idea how you could possibly determine whether it was justified or not. I do think that there is a good chance everyone would now be alive and healthy if the hiker had not been carrying a gun, though it is impossible to say if that is true either.
PB
12:48 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Dan - A bit of research shows that your example from 2009 is outweighed by many more examples of the armed citizen prevailing and saving lives in public places. Here are some recent examples of the publicly armed citizen prevailing:
Grizzly wins over unarmed: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/08/hiker_killed_by_grizzly_bear_in_yellowstone_second_this_year.html
Grizzly loses over armed citizen: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-killed-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943
Pizza Man wins: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/police:-pizza-delivery-man-fights-back-after-being-ambushed,-kills-robber
Pastor wins: http://www.kristv.com/news/pistol-packing-pastor/
Walmart Shopper wins: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13865042/man-thwarts-robbery-by-shooting-at-suspect
PB
12:56 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I also forgot to mention that if someone is trying to convince us that hiking is much safer without a weapon, since we could enrage the animal or person with a handgun, this defies logic. I would much rather take my chances of being armed and trying to scare away the animal/person (with my gun in hand) and use the gun if I had to, versus relying only on trying to scare the animal/person without a weapon.
Dan Abendschein
1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
@PB - Thanks for the examples. I have to say though I don't see any examples in the non-wildlife ones of anybody's life being saved. Several burglary and theft suspects were detained because somebody was armed, which is a good thing. Several burglary and theft suspects were shot and killed because someone was armed, which I believe is not a good thing. On the wildlife front I definitely see the logic of having a firearm and in grizzly country it does make a lot of sense. However, an alternative that will not possibly result in any human being shot and killed is bear mace.
Dan Abendschein
1:04 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
@PB - But do you really trust yourself in a situation where you are frightened and being attacked in only shooting to try to scare someone off? Isn't it likely you would end up firing at the person who you feel threatened by? Also, there are other ways to deter attacks. I carry a hiking pole with me when I hike. I imagine if a strange dog charged me my likely response would be to hold it up in front of me. If he did not back down I imagine I'd take a swing at him, connect, and likely scare him off. It's true that I would not be able to fight off three dogs and a human making a coordinated attack, but a mentally ill man with badly trained dogs is not likely to be carrying out such an attack. More likely he is irresponsible and not in control of his dogs and panicky and overly aggressive.
PB
2:35 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Dan - Yes, I am positive that most folks would first want to take a chance of trying to intimidate and/or scare and then resort to lethal force, if required. My point with the logic is that I think most people would want to have a back up option if intimidation, running, scaring, etc. didn't work. Doesn't make sense [to me] to argue that you don't need a good back up because it may enrage the attacker once they are shot. By the time you shoot, you are in fear for your life and have tried reasonable alternatives (time permitting). If you shoot someone and you did this recklessly, you should go to jail, IMO. The overarching point is that there are many examples of the armed citizen (on the trails is just one example that was brought up here) saving lives, property and thwarting bad guys. Good conversation, though!
Jarhead1982
3:06 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Keep and Bear Arms web site...
• Is This Wisconsin’s First Concealed Carry DGU? (WI)
• Homeowner Shoots at One of Two Burglars (WV)
• Mother With Young Son Shoots & Chases Down Daytime Burglar (TX)
• Retired School Librarian Holds Three Thieves At Gunpoint Until Police Arrive (MO)
• Homeowner Shoots Burglar With RUBBER Bullets From 12GA Shotgun (OR)
• Buckeye police: Man shot during neighborhood gunbattle (AZ)
• Dana Point Man Shoots, Kills Intruder (CA)
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Kicked in Front Door in Broad Daylight (OK)
• Homeowner Fights Off, Shoots At 2 or 3 Burglars (SC)
• DA: Man Who Shot Teens Was Third Robbery Victim (PA)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Gestating Edition (CA)
• Daytona woman, 64, holds suspect in yard at gunpoint (FL)
• Homeowner Shoots & Kills Late Night Intruder (CA)
• Man Shoots at Home Intruder 3 Times, Suspect Escapes (UT)
• Homeowner Shoots, Kills Intruder (OH)
• Couple Shoot, Kill Home Invader (WA)
• Homeowner Shoots Armed Home Invader Who Kicked in His Door (NM)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Charles Robbins (FL)
• "Cat Lady" Fights Off Three Home Invaders Who Broke In To Steal Guns (MO)
• South Carolina Waffle House customer shoots, kills robbery suspect (SC)
• Suspect Shot During Attempted Robbery at Apartment Complex (WV)
• Conyers, GA Shopper shoots knife-wielding robber (GA)
Jarhead1982
3:07 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
More, same web site..
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder as His Family Sleeps Nearby (AL)
• Columbus homeowner shoots alleged home invader (GA)
• Houston, TX Resident Shoots & Kills One of Two Armed Home Invaders (TX)
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder With a .22 (PA)
• 15 Yr Old Texas Girl Scares Off Two Burglars With Her Dad’s Gun (TX)
• Mother shoots, kills son during bedroom assault (NC)
• 82 Year Old Homeowner Shoots & Kills Mask Man w/ WW2 Gun (FL)
• Don't Mess With South Carolina Women (SC)
• Gun Carrier Shoots at Impostor Police Officer (IN)
• Homeowner Shoots 1 Burglar, Captures Another (IN)
• Cleveland restaurateur with concealed handgun license forced to shoot man who threatened employees with two handguns (OH)
• National Guardsman Pulls Gun On, Captures Three Teenage Robbers (IL)
• Homeowner Shoots Rifle Wielding Home Invader w/ Shotgun (TX)
• 'I just shot the man': Boy, 14, kills intruder after gang of FOUR men try to break into house where he was home alone with his sister
• Tampa FL Homeowner Shoots at Home Invader (FL)
• Three Armed Men Try To Rob Bar, One is Shot, Killed by Customer (VA)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Adan Duran (CA)
• Jewelry Store Clerk Shoots At Heavily Armed Robbers (FL)
• Shooting by ex-deputy sparks debate on "Stand your ground" law (FL)
Jarhead1982
3:07 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
More, same website...
• Burglar Was Interrupted By Family, Shot in Foot (ME)
• Business Owner Shoots One of Six Burglars, Others Captured (OK)
• Store Clerk Ends Armed Robbery With A Single Gunshot (NC)
• Visitor Shoots, Kills One of Several Home Invaders (TX)
• Homeowner at Home w/ Daughter Shoots Home Invader Through Door (TX)
• Woman Pepper Sprayed By Home Invader, Gets Gun, Shoots Back (MO)
• Alleged burglar fatally shot by homeowner in South Everett (WA)
• National Guardsman thwarts Red Line robbery; 3 teens arrested (IL)
• Dyer man shoots at suspected police impostor (IN)
• Syracuse police: Armed robber meets armed store clerk; clerk wins (NY)
• Homeowner Confronts Car Thief, Shoots Thief Once After Altercation (AL)
• Woman Shoots Ex-Boyfriend Who Broke Into Her Home In the Face (OH)
• 90 Year Old Retired Sheriff’s Deputy and WW2 Pilot Shoots Intruder (CA)
• 7-11 Clerk Shoots, Wounds Armed Robber Who Was Then Caught (VA)
• Police: 84-year-old man kills intruder (9-1-1 audio available) (OH)
• Las Vegas Pawn Shop Employee Shoots, Kills Armed Robber (NV)
• Armed neighbor stops burglary (TX)
• Home invasion ends with suspect’s stabbing (WA)
• Blanchard woman shoots and kills intruder (OK)
• Wendy’s Employee Shoots, Kills 1 of 2 Armed Robbers (GA)
• Teenager Shoots, Kills Home Invader With Shotgun (TN)
Jarhead1982
3:10 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
More, same web site.
Review of the oldest date on these actual police incidents is 12/14/11.
If one were to review these 3 other web sites with this data, KC3, Armed Citizen, American Rifleman (there are many others), you will count on average 80 incidents a month.
Since the NRA or 80 mil law abiding gun owners do not own or operate any police departments, claimed bias by anyone would be rather childish and naieve.
• Fort Worth Woman Shoots & Kills Home Intruder (TX)
• Couple Shoots At, Captures Intruder On Drugs (OR)
• Retired Police Officer Shoots Career Criminal/Home Invader (MI)
• Home Invader Who Was Wearing Body Armor, Shot, Killed (NC)
• DGU Puts Kroger in a Jam Over Employee Gun Policy (IN)
• Wife Shoots Homeless Squatter Who Attacked Husband (SC)
• Pistol-packing mayor draws heat (AL)
• Man stabbed to death after breaking into home (KY)
• Aloha couple wakes up to man beating them with tiki torch (OR)
• 2 shot in gunfire exchange at coney island on Detroit's west side (MI)
• Investigators try to determine if a fatal Montgomery County shooting was justified (PA)
• Magalia man shot to death after forcing way into home (CA)
• Reno police say resident shoots intruder twice and puts him in the hospital (NV)
Jarhead1982
3:12 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117
Jarhead1982
3:13 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents
murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.
Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on some anti gun zealots beliefs.
Perry Kneisel
11:42 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I've done a lot of back country back packing in the Sierras in my younger years. I wouldn't think about NOT carrying a weapon in my back pack. .45 auto. Then, make camp, set up tent and sleeping bags, put the weapon on condition 1 (cocked and locked), and place it under my pillow. I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it, thank you very much. To be fair and give full disclosure I am trained and a Vietnam combat vet and was so at the time of my back country adventures.
Dan Abendschein
11:48 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Perry, was your concern about bears and other wild life or was it about other people?
Robby
10:07 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
When I was a field scientist, our group always had a rifle in camp when we were in the back of beyond. It was most certainly for protection against the types of people you encounter in the trackless back of beyond, and not for critters. Never needed it, thank goodness. I also wore a whistle, which I used once. There are a startling number of people in wilderness areas who steal equipment/camping gear, or who do not want to be found, and have what you might call poor social skills.
We also received instruction in recognizing pot plants in forested areas, and to run like **** the other way if we encountered them. And this was many years ago...I can't imagine that it is any better now.
Not that this adds trememdously to the debate about open carry in urban areas, but it might be kind of interesting for people who don't do backcountry camping. I miss my field days sometimes. =) And for the record, I have zero problem with CCW or open carry. I have faith in my fellow citizens...and the bad guys have guns anyway.
Baird Tarr
12:35 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
An old man is being threatened by a violent, mentally ill, felon while in company of three aggressive, unrestrained dogs and the old man has the burden of proof placed on him. Yet, the District Attorney won't allow evidence of a violent and felonious past on the "victim's" part to be admitted into court?
I guess you're right. The old man should have not had a gun. That way he would be a free man and know he has a right to defend himself with his fists against a violent, mentally ill, felon, who was threatening him with three aggressive, unrestrained dogs.
Dan Abendschein
12:58 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Baird - I won't disagree with you on the issue of allowing the man's past to be discussed, but unless you were there you have no way to know whether the old man was threatened enough to justify the shooting. It's true things could have gone very badly for him, but I think more likely that without a gun they would both be alive and healthy today.
Darren Wilkens
2:48 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Too many IGNORANT comments from people who don't like guns. Here's a simple solution; if you don't like guns, DON'T BUY THEM! Leave our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS ALONE!
Baird Tarr
3:13 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
An alive and healthy career, violent felon.
Yes, and the old man should just take his beating like a man and pray for the mercy of a sociopath.
deputycleric
3:23 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Oh dear. Another anti-carry ignoramus and/or sock puppet.
During much of the 20th century, the "fashionable" pattern in the US was (and in California still is): "Ooh, carrying guns is scary. Let's ban carry and just let people have them in the home." Well surprise surprise, a lot more people now start getting assaulted outside their homes. "Ooh, crime is going up. Guess we'd better restrict use of guns in the home too!" Now home invasions go up. "Ooh, better ban them completely!"
At which point you have the UK, or Chicago, both with multiple times the violent crime rate of the US overall (which has been going down for years at the same time gun ownership, and ability to carry, has been rising). Of course, some places may try to hide that, like the UK measuring murder only by number of convictions, Chicago not fully reporting its numbers at all to the FBI, or NYC merging its numbers with surrounding localities that do permit some significant level of gun ownership.
That sort of attitude is _so_ last century. Too bad California's government (abetted by faux-progressives like Karin) is determined to keep it locked into that neanderthal view of guns, gun owners and civil rights.
Perry Kneisel
3:35 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Dan, my wife and I encountered bears on each of our back packing trips. One certainly doesn't use a weapon on a bear or a mom and her cubs unless one is attacked. After all, it's their natural habitat. We're just visitors. One takes precautions like hanging one's food high over a tree branch and so forth. No, I was armed more for the 2 legged predators that were traversing the John Muir trail at the time. Like I said, rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it. As far as an encounter out there where one might have to use deadly force on another person and there are virtually no witnesses as noted in an earlier post, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 if you get my drift. Fortunately, for my wife and myself we never had such an encounter but were prepared nevertheless.
Karin Bugge
5:14 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Sock puppet here, checking in late. But those of you who took issue with this piece, and seek to carry guns or rifles outside the house -- concealed or revealed -- in the interest of personal safety, I assume you’ve already successfully addressed the greatest dangers in life: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and accidents. They’re the bad guys, the primary killers according to the CDC. So, I assume you practice moderation in diet and drink; you don't smoke. When driving, you never speed. If that's the case, you don't need a gun. Your odds for a long and fruitful life have increased, exponentially.
Lisa Hastings
6:47 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Perfect!
Jarhead1982
3:16 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
We assume since you plan and prepare for the worst case sceanrio that you have life, car, home, and medical insurance as being preapred is not insane right?
So maybe you can then explain why the public who understands how impotent the police are, is wrong for planning and preparing for the worst case scenario of having to defend themselves?
Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?
FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 49% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.
But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.
So based on that (1.38 mil x 49%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.75% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.
Jarhead1982
3:17 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Whats this, oh government rulings on whom doesnt have to obey gun control laws.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/
Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968 where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don't have to follow 85% of the existing gun control laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc....
Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do?
This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons! After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn't be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.
Jarhead1982
3:18 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals: Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jarhead1982
3:22 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Here is a few more...
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
Jarhead1982
3:22 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Hey lets articulate what the real risk of people carrying in public/concealed, same thing.
ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.
Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida's data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html it says the same thing.
JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to .14 per physician.
Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.
So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you crying to ban doctors?
Based on your what if theory, any parent taking a child to a doctor should be reported to child protective services based on what the doctor "might do"!
Matthew Orton
11:12 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Karin,
You MAY be right about what the top killers are: Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Unfortunately these are all what we would call in the past "natural causes". There are things we can do in the HOPES of deterring them, but nothing we can do can completely stop them. But when you are trying to compare them to the dangers of being armed outside your home, you're just being ridiculous. Apples and oranges. While I'm talking about pretenses here, you are also only including mortality rates as opposed to assault & murder rates, that is a bit skewed.
I am curious, however, how your "rights" are being infringed by another person exercising their rights? "this member of the public feels her rights are very much in danger if they’re able to do so"
You also go on to question the sense that an armed person might have in any given scenario but I ask you this, how many LICENSED drivers have no aim, or no sense? I welcome any dialogue you may bring and am truly interested in hearing your viewpoint provided I'm given the opportunity to retort.
deputycleric
6:34 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
... until the moment when your otherwise healthy body faces the prospect of immediate death or grievous damage, at the hands of a criminal who has no reason to believe one has the ability to resist his intent to beat, rape or kill.
At that point, one may have a sudden epiphany concerning the usefulness of being able to not only own, but carry, a self-protection device capable of causing fear in such an attacker (thus peacefully deterring the attack, and no one gets hurt) or stopping him from carrying it out.
Unfortunately, the state of California is determined to make sure that its citizens will be entitled ONLY to that epiphany, and not to actually make the vision a reality. Unless one is politically connected, of course, and has bodyguards (who, for some odd reason, are carrying guns. Haven't they heard about the benefits of a healthy diet?)
Too bad, since right-to-carry not only tends to protect the carrier, but applied broadly in the community seems to reduce crime overall. Or at the very least, as the more-guns-less-crime numbers above suggest, doesn't seem to increase it. A win-win situation.
Pat
10:06 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Karin if one so chooses to eat things that are not healthy or drink or smoke that is their business and their right. If they cause their death by such indulgences so be it. It is their life to do with as they see fit. When someone else threatens the life of another they have the right to defend their life. When you or anyone else tries to deny that right from anyone you become an accomplice to their attacker. The hands of the anti gun crowd are covered in the blood of every victim that could have been armed but wasn't because of laws which striped them of their right to do so.
Pat
Baird Tarr
6:38 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
"If that's the case, you don't need a gun."
Your position on my rights seems crystal clear. Would you care to make other important decisions based on what you think is best for me or what I need? I don't 'need' a lot of things Karin.
Do you also think that our elected official(Portantino) needs to take the oath, that made him swear to protect and uphold the Constitution(including that pesky Bill of Rights), like it is a sacred trust? Or is it just a hollow promise that means nothing to you or him?
Landon Reynolds
7:13 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Perhaps to educate yourself, you can try something simple, which I do, and I write commentaries on every day:
Use Google and search for ‘Homeowner Shoots Intruder’, or ‘Customer Shoots Robbery Suspect’, or ‘Concealed Carry In Action’, even ‘Clerk Shoots robbery Suspect’.
You might be surprised at how many crimes are thwarted every day in America by a law-abiding citizen with a firearm. And you might also be surprised by the ‘Crime Prevention’ that is carried out when one of the ‘criminal element’ in society if ‘dispatched’ thus preventing that criminal from EVER committing another crime!
And, as a bonus, it saves the taxpayers $$$ Thousands!
Landon Reynolds
7:16 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
"There is no guarantee that whoever carries a gun has any sense of aim, any sense of how of when to use a lethal weapon, or any sense, period."
You are obviously not 'in tune' with 'reality'. The overwhelming majority of gun owners know their weapons very well, as well as the laws of self-defense such as 'Castle Doctrine' for each state. They also know how to use that weapon properly.
Most spend quite a bit of time on the range in practice, and most know that the primary target is 'Center of Mass' to eliminate the target.
Lisa Hastings
11:12 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
GUN people, why not advocate for the right to bear nuclear arms and missles and other weapons of mass destruction? You don't do that because this is not really about the principle of the matter, or the constitutional right to bear arms (which one could argue includes the right to bear weapons of mass destruction). This is about the right to be macho and fantasize about the wild west and about comparing the tiny size of your you know what to the next guy. REAL men advocate peace and love and being kind to children and animals.
Jarhead1982
1:28 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
You do realize that W Eugene Hollon back in the 1970's using official government death records reviewed the wild west during its wildest days from 1870-1885 and found only 45 deaths by illegal use of firearms, or a 1 per 100k people rate.
Now using FBI UCR database from 2008 for three of the anti gun fiefdoms Chicago 12.3 deaths per 100k people, NYC 4.3 deaths per 100k people, and Washington D.C. 23.6 deaths per 100k people, we see the facts clearly show the wild west as far safer than any anti gun paradise.
So knowing that the wild west is only a figment of your unsubstantiated and over active imagination based on hollywood and dime store novel fantasies, you really shouldnt use that reference again or do you enjoy the taste of your own foot stuck in your mouth?
Jim In Houston
1:32 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
"GUN people, why not advocate for the right to bear nuclear arms and missles and other weapons of mass destruction? "
"Gun people" do not make those stupid arguments...only anti-rights people do that.
"You don't do that because this is not really about the principle of the matter, or the constitutional right to bear arms (which one could argue includes the right to bear weapons of mass destruction). "
No, it's because we UNDERSTAND that the 2A applies to individual, portable arms suitable for militia service. Anti-gunners do not have that comprehension.
"This is about the right to be macho and fantasize about the wild west and about comparing the tiny size of your you know what to the next guy."
Your infantilism shows how badly you've lost the argument....and I am very kind to children and animals.
Natalie
8:23 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
You got it, Lisa. I don't feel at all scared in the wilderness, and have never ever been threatened. Never thought I'd be more courageous than these male wimps who have to carry a weapon because they're so scared of strangers and animals.
Revvell
9:19 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Funny how when people are being ignorant they think they are courageous. There are MANY women who've been out running, thinking everything is o.k. until they are grabbed, raped and killed. Were they courageous or ignorant?
Here in Altadena, a woman was near Blockbuster, grabbed and molested. Unarmed. Courageous or ignorant?
I can't legally carry a gun here on the streets but I CAN carry pepper spray and I do. I never leave home without it ~ AND, I don't carry it in the bottom of my purse (that would be as ignorant and carrying an unloaded gun), I carry it in my hand. Am I courageous? Well, I'm not ignorant enough to think that because I "think" nothing will happen, it doesn't mean it wont.
I've heard too many stories of people and/or their pets being mauled by other dogs. I've heard too many stories of people (women) being grabbed, raped, beaten. I AM courageous and I'm not ignorant and I am a woman and I support EVERYONE owning a gun or at the very least (as one of my students just did), learn how to use one.
Jarhead1982
11:17 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
So what your saying Natalie is that your the spitting image of a 6' 5" 400 lbs of 1970's Communist East German Womens shot putter all roided out.
Yeah, we can see how you wouldnt be afraid of anything much less ever assaulted as animals as big and tough as Grizzlies are smart enough to know when they are outclassed.
Ever hear the tale of the old man pulled over by the police officer.
Officer: You wouldnt be carrying any weapons
Old Man: Why yes officer, I have my .38 spcl along with my permit
Officer: You dont have any other weapons do you
Old Man: Why yes, I have my .45 colt and 30-30 lever action rifle in the trunk as well
Officer: Uh what are you afraid of sir
Old Man: Not one damn thing
But hey, you dont buy or have life, car, home, or medical insurance because on your irrelevant beliefs, to be prepared for the worst case scenario is insane!
Come back when you have more to offer than emotionally useless drivel.
Jarhead1982
1:29 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Past experience with gun control leaders such as Annette "Flirty" Stevens (Illinois Million Mom March president caught with drugs and a de-serialized handgun), Sheila Eccleston (Mothers Against Violence, imprisoned for possessing a sawed-off shotgun), James Kelly (Seattle Urban League anti-gunner caught brandishing a handgun during an argument), Bart Stupak (champion of mandatory federal trigger locks whose son later committed suicide with dad's unlocked gun), and Barbara Graham (DC Million Mom March activist convicted of a revenge shooting of an innocent person who HADN'T killed her son) suggests that frustrated gun control activists tend to go out with a bang rather than a whimper.
The moral is, if you ever happen to come across Dennis Henigan, or another anti gun extremist take cover. You don't want to be at Ground Zero when they reach their ultimate frustration level and go postal on everyone near them.
Jarhead1982
1:30 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wow, you going to spend the money to build, keep, and maintain a nuclear weapon?
How much does that cost?
How many people in the world are rich enough to do so, .005% , 00005%, ,000000005%, do tell how your raving response is answered and we can point you to the people who you need to fear as they are the only ones who could afford such a device. Your arguement is strawman that is irrelevent to the anti freedom being promoted by the author of this article!
But we do appreciate you demonstrating who is emotionally unstable by use of pathetic sexual innuendos and emotional ka ka that demonstrates that people like yourself are of extremely llimited intelligence and mentally incapable of developing an intelligent arguement.
Sane people use facts to demonstrate a need to limit a right. All you use is emotional rhetoric that means nothing in the real world Lisa.
So either growup like an adult and develop a fact based arguement that can sway the other side and debunk all the GOVERNMENT facts or go cry somewhere else as we are rather tired of seeing non intelligent replies like your ranting spiel
deputycleric
2:27 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
You don't do that because this is not really about the principle of the matter, or the constitutional right to bear arms"
Sigh. You didn't really read the thread, did you?
"REAL men advocate peace and love and being kind to children and animals."
As a person who both advocates and practices peace, love and being kind to children and animals, I also understand that those things need, occasionally, to be protected from violent individuals who care nothing for them.
Doing nothing but calling 911 and then waiting 30-60 minutes for a response, while saying "but but but I advocate peace and love!" while a mugger or intruder murders one's family, and then in all likelihood walks away to commit more violence... do you really consider that situation morally superior to one where a parent sees to it that they have the means AND the right to either convincingly scare away such an attacker or effectively stop him in the act?
Lisa Hastings
7:03 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Forget guns! If you are sleeping or in the shower (remember Psycho!) when they come to get you, your guns are worthless! My pack of viscous dogs, Altadena-style front and back yard wall, and noisy and aggressive geese have got me covered and are a far more superior means of protection than your cache of rifles and handguns.
Lisa Hastings
7:04 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Gotta love all the PARANOID characters from afar who come out of the woodwork and introduce themselves once the word GUN is mentioned! We never hear from these people on other matters of importance in Altadena!
Revvell
8:04 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Actually, that's not true.
Jarhead1982
7:33 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wow, Lisa believes she is God, all knowing, omniprescent therefore everyone should bow to her incessent rants and raves based on her own delusions.
MMMmmmm, doggie & goose suprise, both are delicious, ever traveled to Asia? My dog wont come near me for about a week when I get home so am absolutely sure puppy dog was on the menu even though I never order it. As for goose, when marinated and slow roasted beer can style, outstanding, although a time consuming pain to pluck all the feathers properly.
So the question is how many chiuahua's do you have and you really believe a dog will stop a determined attacker, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO. You have been watching too much hollywood fantasies again poor widdle girl.
Beatnicks like you are supposed to be loving and caring, so viscous dogs are entirely out of character so pardon us when we say you have told a widdle fib, poor demented girl.
Just because you post lies on Altadena doesnt make them true or facts so why should we not pay attention to correct said lies?
Por widdle girl, please let the local authorities know where you are so we can protect the public from your brand of schizophrenia and send the men in white with the butterfly nets. It really is for your own protection that you should be locked up as we really dont want to upset you too much as we know how anti gun extremists have a tendency to go postal and violent when people wont buy the brand of snake oil they are trying to sell.
Dan MacPherson
7:56 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Lisa-
I'm from Altadena. 51 years here.
I'm sorry, but you are being very immature.
yes, this article was published on the world wide web. It has been read.
I have noticed several drive by shootings, fatalities, all within the Lincoln/Altadena drive area. All recently. MOST of the replies here are well thought out and politely stated. Yours (and a few others) are not.
VBW
Dan MacPherson
Baird Tarr
8:36 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
I'd like to throw down a challenge to Karin and Dan. How about some real investigatvie journalism? Why don't you research your local Sheriff's policy on granting Concealed Carry Permits? It should be all a matter of public records. Is your local sheriff honest and have a clear, CONSISTANT policy where an average joe can obtain a permit? Or, is there a back room kind of 'Good Old Boys' club that rewards major campagin contributors?
The issue of open carry is a protest about corruption as practiced by our elected officials. Consider this a fat, slow, pitch right down the center of the plate. Do you sit on it and wait for something better? Or do you take advantage of the offering?