Via Instapundit, an attempt by the Washington, D.C. Police to convince residents to allow officers into their homes for voluntary gun searches.

A crackdown on guns is meeting some resistance in the District.

Police are asking residents to submit to voluntary searches in exchange for amnesty under the District's gun ban. They passed out fliers requesting cooperation on Monday.

The program will begin in a couple of weeks in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

If "safe homes" were the actual goal of the program, then perhaps residences that were searched and found to be without firearms would be provided with suitable defensive weaponry and an offer of free training from teh D.C. police. Of course, the program isn't about safety, but is instead a last desperate bid by the District of Columbia to disarm their citizenry in advance of the expected verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case.

It's an attempt at fascism, but at least it is polite fascism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Jeff Quinton alerted me to this story online at Baltimore Radio station WBAL earlier this week, and still online:

Quartermasters with the Baltimore County Police Department became aware of a higher demand on ammunition as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and planned accordingly.

Bill Toohey with the department says their supplier was giving the priority to military ammo and it was difficult to get "day to day" bullets.

Toohey says as a result they switched suppliers who is not so dependent on military contracts. He says they also purchased a nine month supply of bullets instead of the usual six month supply. "At the moment we have more than enough to get us through so if there is a problem we have some pad to fall back on," says Toohey.

The Sheriff in Washington County and police chief in Hagerstown say in addition to have a shortage of ammo for their agencies they are also paying more for bullets.

Toohey says the cost of bullets has also gone up in Baltimore County. He tells WBAL Radio that they were spending $209 dollars per one-thousand bullets that the officer's use now the county pays $278 per thousand. "But again they saw this coming and built it into the budget," says Toohey.

The problem with this story? It is unequivocally false, as was the original Associated Press article that first made a similar claim last summer.

If Wikipedia is correct, the BCPD uses the Sigarms SIG Pro 2340 as their primary sidearm, a firearm that does not use the 9mm NATO pistol cartridge used by our military. It is therefore false to claim that that any ammunition shortage of this caliber of bullets is due to military usage.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that for backing up the SIG Pro, the Remington 870 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun plays a secondary role. 12 gauge-shotguns, while used by the military for specific roles (typically door-beaching, CQB, and guarding prisoners), is used in far fewer numbers than the M16/M4 weapons systems. Claiming that a war-related shortage of ammunition affects the BCPD shotguns is also false.

The only possible firearm cartridge used by the BCPD that could conceivably be impacted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the .223 or 5.56x45 NATO round used by the relatively few BCPD officers issued M16 or M4-type firearms.

But this claim is also untrue.

As I noted in great detail on my post of August 20, 2007, the ammunition factories and production lines that supply our military are completely separate from the ammunition factories and production lines that supply ammunition to police and the general public.

After speaking with spokesmen from three of the largest ammunition manufacturers in the United States, it became clear that the primary cause of the shortage of ammunition for police departments was the direct result of increased consumption by police departments.

Police departments (and civilians) are purchasing more .223 Remington/5.56-caliber firearms, particularly military-style carbines.

Once purchased, police officers much train to acquire and maintain their proficiency with these weapons, and it is the increased consumption of ammunition by police that is most directly responsible for their own ammunition shortages, as manufacturers we unable to catch up with increased police demand.

Another cause of the shortage is increased demand in developing nations for raw materials used in cartridge manufacturing, particularly brass and lead.

What... you think that China was able to produce all the lead for their toy industry internally? No, they purchase those materials on the global market, including the United States, which drives up raw material prices.

Sadly, though Jeff Quinton addressed the factual inaccuracies of the story yesterday morning, and I contacted both the BCPD and WBAL's newsroom shortly afterward to retract their false story (after providing them with the names of contacts of the three largest military and civilian ammunition manufacturers, Brian Grace of ATK Corporate Communications, Michael Shovel, National Sales Manager for CORBON/Glaser, and Michael Haugen, Manager of the Military Products Division for Remington Arms Company Inc), the news outlet seems less than interested in discovering the facts than in pushing a poorly-sourced story that relies on police quartermasters, men in no position to have direct knowledge of why demand has risen.

WBAL's newsroom seems far more interested in taking the lazy way out than practicing professional journalism. If you would like to ask WBAL to retract this demonstrably false story, you can contact them here.

Be polite, and perhaps we can make sure they stay on target in the future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:29 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.

Heller v. District of Columbia goes to the Supreme Court today, as a group of Washington, D.C. residents contend that the ban on operable firearms inside homes in the District of Columbia—including an outright ban on handguns not registered prior to 1976—violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional.

Robert A. Levy, co-counsel to Heller has an op-ed posted in today's Boston Globe that highlights the correct individual rights argument.

Predictably, the editorial board of the New York Times has an op-ed of their own against the individual rights perspective, which they seem to feel applies to the First Amendment, but not the Second.

They write, quote dishonestly:

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia's gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.

The District of Columbia, which has one of the nationÂ’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.

What is "reasonable" about a law that turns a homeowner into a felon the moment he takes a trigger lock off his firearm (including rifles or shotguns) and loads it during a home invasion to protect his family? The Times refuses to address the obvious unfairness of this law, and the fact that it completely precludes any legal armed self defense, even during the most violent of crimes.

As you might expect from the Times, they follow one deception with another.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which states: "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." The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.

The 1939 case in questions is of course, United States vs. Miller in which a pair of bootleggers were arrested for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required certain firearms to be registered and a $200 transfer tax be paid every time an NFA firearm was transferred. The two men were charged for not paying the $200 tax on the the shortened shotgun. Neither of the bootleggers nor their defense showed up for the Supreme Court case, as Miller had been killed by that time, and the other defendant, Layton, accepted a plea bargain.

In reality, Miller is a very murky ruling, having been cited by both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates alike. Far from being a pro-gun control case, Miller is inconclusive at best, which the Times dishonestly and purposefully overlooks.

They continue:

The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws.

The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a "reasonable" law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose "reasonable" gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington's rules.

Again, only at the Times could they attempt support a law that completely outlaws the use of a firearm as a firearm as a "reasonable" restriction.

Perhaps if the District of Columbia ruled that their citizens had the right to own a printing press"or today, a computer printer"but required it to be kept disassembled or locked up, and made it illegal to either load it with paper or ink, then the Times might change their tune.

That, of course would require far more intellectual honesty than exists at the Times, and it seems that putting truly innocent people at risk to the whims of criminals does not weigh heavily on their souls.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:00 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Right from the outset, I would like to point out that I am Scottish, living in Scotland, and thus removed from this debate. However, I have been interested in the debate over the Second Amendment for a long time now, and have formed my own conclusions based on my interpretation of the wording, the context of the times and the legal precedents that have followed, the transition of the Militia as an entity into the National Guard, for instance. The intent that I can decipher is that the Second Amendment does specifically protect the retention of firearms by private citizens for the purpose of duty in the Militia, so that were raising of a militia required, time would not be wasted distributing weapons. Secondary effects include the ability for citizens to form an Irregular detachment to engage the enemy as skirmishers in the early stages of any invasion, until an organised response can be formed, and the inability of the Government to bar the citizens from access to weapons in order to ensure it's own survival. I point out, though I think it is a factor, perhaps an important one, the retention of firearms for the purpose of giving citizens the ability to remove the government is not the primary intention of the Second Amendment. The private ownership of firearms is justified, and protected, under the requirement of potential militia service. As the Militia is now legally the National Guard, that would mean that the only uninfringable right to own a firearm would be possessed by members of the National Guard, and only extending to weapons that could be used in the service of the National Guard. In the days of the Militia, people who privately bought a firearm that could be used for Militia service could get a refund by taking it to their Militia officer. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It PROTECTS that right from infringement by other laws, but only in the circumstances it lays out. That's the crux. It does not speak in any way to the rights of private ownership of firearms for any other purposes. It also does not proscribe them, they simply don't come into the reading of the Second Amendment. And I am of the opinion that the Constitution as the premier legal document of the United States of America, MUST be enforced wholly and completely. From my interpretation, the individual state court rulings that the Second Amendment does protect individual firearm ownership rights for purposes such as self defence are biased readings of the Amendment due to public pressure. The purpose of Amendments is to update the primary legal document of the country so as to remain applicable to current times. I would argue that the Second Amendment is, to a greater or lesser degree, no longer valid, and needs either updating or replacing. Given that one of the secondary reasons for a citizens right to bear arms independent of Government oversight IS preparation for the eventuality that the Government might one day have to be removed by the citizens, though not the primary reading of the Amendment as I have said, the legal alteration of the private Militia into the Government-controlled National Guard violates one of the premises of the Amendment. I am not suggesting that the National Guard be scrapped and the Militia reinstated, merely that the Second Amendment is not longer applicable to the current times. In addition, the ownership of firearms for self defence is a good idea, one that should be enshrined in law. My arguments on how elements of such practise should be handled do not come into this argument at this point. I believe that the founders of your country would have chosen to protect individual firearm ownership rights were the necessity of enshrining it in law foreseen. For a country that was born on the tenants of individual responsibility as well as freedom, it is in keeping with the national character. But currently, there is not such law in the American legal pantheon that addresses the protection of such rights. One is needed. Arguing over subtle or incorrect interpretations of an irrelevant law is pointless.

Posted by: Elydo at March 18, 2008 10:10 AM (Rlu0g)

2 "It does not speak in any way to the rights of private ownership of firearms for any other purposes." It does not speak of any purposes. Read it in its original wording. "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." Note the comas. What they are saying is that we need a well regulated militia, and the people's right shall not be infringed. If they were talking about the people of the militia then it would have read as follows. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Also, there are still state sanctioned militias that are not the National Guard.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:41 PM (9V6Vj)

3 Thanks, Elydo. That was fair and well written. I'm not sure your reading of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is entirely correct. At the time of it's writing Arms were not just optional equipment but a real necessity in hunting for provender or trade and first defense against raiding natives, and foreign incursions. None of these legitimate reasons for the retention of firearms are enunciated because it was understood. Well, the natives are no longer restless. Hunting is now an avocation and militias are anachronistic. I believe "well regulated militia" is a colorful flourish on the founders intent. Well regulated is perhaps wishful thinking but the militia then comprised of every able bodied man is scarcely distinguishable from the electorate at large. They wanted an armed populace. Without it we would have faced George III with pitchforks and rakes as the French battled Louis the following decade. Remember this is a time when the possession of weapons and hunting dogs were royal prerogatives in Europe. They saw as well the potential of their new enterprise to be taken over by tyrannical faction and they wanted the populace able to defend itself. While the growth in the state's weaponry makes that unlikely the spirit pervades. Moreover what world power would think to successfully invade the US whose citizenry bristles with weapons? Maybe it's time 'self-defense' is finally clarified in the 2nd Amendment. Recent history shows us 'gun-free' zones are shooting galleries.

Posted by: i b squidly at March 18, 2008 01:59 PM (KXZyh)

4 "Well, the natives are no longer restless." Squidly. Perhaps the Natives in the traditional sense are no longer restless, but as you state in the last part of your post, there are most definitely restless natives, I honestly do not see a need to redefine anything, well for anything other than legal rhetoric, because it still applies in its original text. We still need to defend ourselves, in the case of "restless natives" or from some foreign soldiery (we all know that this will probably never happen, but better to have em and not need em than need em and not have em), as well as protecting ourselves should violent action be required to defend against a tyrant (also not likely, but see above). Call me a nitpicker. Other than that, good well thought out out posts, both of you.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 03:21 PM (9V6Vj)

5 Elydo Thought-provoking post. Thanks!

Posted by: iconoclast at March 18, 2008 04:20 PM (M+wD9)

6 ELYDO, Federal Code: title 10 sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Even if the government were to change the definition of the "militia", which currently includes me in the "unorganized militia", it cannot change the definition of the "People" in the consititution without amending it. The right is one of the People to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Liberty Defender at March 18, 2008 07:54 PM (eJA9a)

7 Thank you, I am a Redneck, and a Marine. I am not always able to put thought down on paper (or keyboard in this case).

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 08:16 PM (9V6Vj)

8 The hatred the left has for the Constitution is stunning! I couldn't imagine being so intellectually dishonest as to try and change the obvious meaning of the second amendment.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 19, 2008 12:54 AM (kNqJV)

9 Many thanks for all the compliments. Capitalist, if that's directed at me, I would argue that the meaning isn't obvious, thus the debates going on about it. My flatmate is from North Carolina, and she generally subscribes to the common view given by most here, that the second half of the key sentence, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is not tied to the first half, the security of a free state being dependant on a well-regulated militia. The militia reference is more a hook to hang the meat of the Amendment upon, if you will. My own view is as I have outlined, that the militia reference establishes the context, and thus the limitations, of the right to bear arms being beyond infringement, that is, beyond the ability of any other law to circumscribe. The sheer fact that the amendment IS open to interpretation would indicate that it needs to be revised. Typically, in a situation where a law is open to interpretation, the precedent set by the courts enacting that law set the interpretation. That has not happened in the case of the Second Amendment, some state courts have ruled one way, some another, generally in both cases due to lobbying by interest groups. The current case is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed it in 70 years. My own conclusion still comes out to the Second Amendment being revised to be clearer in it's intent, and a new law being drafted to grant the right, or protect it if you believe it's an inherent right in the first place, to keep and bear arms for self defence. Remember, during the era of the Founding Fathers, every male of appropriate age was automatically a member of the militia, thus had the right to have a militia weapon, even aside from the key fact that a weapon was as necessary as a decent pair of boots. In Addendum: Me, Left? No. Me a very strange mix of political ideologies that I would expect to piss off the hard-liners of both sides. Which reassures me, as they're the people I don't generally agree with anyway.

Posted by: Elydo at March 19, 2008 01:30 AM (6gK9M)

10 If you understand 5th grade grammar then the meaning is not only obvious it's a fact. As long as you know what a comma means then you'll know what the second amendment means. The only ones "debating" it are the fascist left. What were the first things that both Stalin and Hitler took away from its citizenry? That would be their guns.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 19, 2008 04:24 AM (kNqJV)

11 Right, so now we're getting insulting. Though I am actually dyslexic and also likely have Aspergers, I'm in the process of getting diagnosed, so a retard comment next would possibly be more accurate than saying I don't understand fifth grade grammar. It's amusing that you make an argument about understanding how to use commas and fail to utilize one in your first sentence, there should be one after "obvious" in order to accentuate your point. And no part of this debate is about the Government removing people's access to firearms. The key point is whether the Second Amendment PROTECTS the right to keep and bear arms from Government regulation, and the circumstances withal.

Posted by: Elydo at March 19, 2008 10:43 AM (UrYAz)

12 Very thoughtful Elydo. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. Just to clarify, the National Guard should not be considered militia, vis a vis the 2nd Amendment. The Army and Air National Guards are a part of the National Guard Bureau which is a subordinate command withing the Department of Defense. The only true, non-federal militias would be State Defense Forces. Not all states have them and, while Federally recognized, they receive no Federal funding. They are the only state 'militia' forces that cannot be federalized by the PotUS. Also, with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the Gov. of a state is no longer the sole CiC of the NG units during emergencies within in his or her state. This is important to remember when trying to keep with the spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written - that the People may need to overthrow a tyrannical government as the Fathers had just completed doing.

Posted by: Dan Irving at March 19, 2008 02:28 PM (zw8QA)

13 This is another part that is wrong, at least as I understand this. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can. They aren't ruling on whether a city can do this, but whether the federal government can since D.C. is ultimately controlled by the federal government. I might be wrong about this, but this is a different question than one would face NYC or Boston.

Posted by: Tony B at March 20, 2008 03:23 AM (187Jq)

14 I would also argue that we do not get the right to self defense from any piece of paper, it is a given right that all humans possess. Since these weapons in the hands of the people should be used in self defense, then we do not require it to be placed on paper to say so. Ya know what I mean?

Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2008 03:59 PM (9V6Vj)

15 Hiya! Quick question that's entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My site looks weird when viewing from my apple iphone. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to fix this issue. If you have any recommendations, please share. Cheers!

Posted by: Reed at October 23, 2012 11:46 AM (2vu8L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You have to enjoy this bit of information in a Reuters story today by Daniel Trotta, where he simply parrots a claim made by anonymous police (my bold):

Interstate 95, which runs up the U.S. East Coast, is known to cops as the "Iron Pipeline" -- the conduit of choice for gun smugglers to move their hardware from the southern United States to New York city.

With formidable opponents in the gun manufacturers and gun owners, national politicians do little to stop this traffic, leaving gun control largely in the hands of local leaders.

"Where is the outrage in this country? Well, mayors see it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "We're the ones who have to go to the funerals. We're the ones that have to look somebody in the eye and say your spouse or your parent or your child is not going to come home."

Since Bloomberg became mayor in 2002, every gun homicide in the city -- including the killing of eight police officers -- has been committed with an illegal gun, police say.

The claim is false, and took me less time to prove than it took to write this sentence.

The following homicides were committed with legal police firearms since Bloomberg became Mayor:

• On May 22, 2003, 43-year old Ousmane Zongo, an immigrant from Burkina Faso, was shot four times by Police Officer Bryan Conroy in a Chelsea warehouse. In 2005, Conroy was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to 5 years probation. In 2006, the city awarded the Zongo family $3 million to settle a wrongful death suit.
• On January 24, 2004, Housing Bureau officer Richard Neri, Jr. accidentally shot to death Timothy Stansbury, a 19-year-old black man who was trespassing on the roof landing of a Bedford-Stuyvesant housing project. Stansbury was unarmed but had apparently startled Neri upon opening the roof door coming upon the officer. At that point, Neri discharged his service firearm and mortally wounded Stansbury. Although Commissioner Kelly stated that the shooting appeared "unjustified", a Brooklyn jury found that no criminal act occurred and that the event was a tragic accident. Neri was thus cleared of all charges.[35] The city later agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Stansbury family. A grand jury declined to indict Neri but Kelly later suspended him for 30 days without pay and permanently stripped him of his weapon.
• On November 25, 2006, plainclothes police officers shot and killed Sean Bell and wounded two of his companions, one critically, outside of the Kalua Cabaret in Queens. No weapon was recovered.[37] According to the police, Bell rammed his vehicle into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, prompting undercover officers to fire fifty rounds into Bell's car. A bullet piercing the nearby AirTrain JFK facility startled two Port Authority patrolmen stationed there. [38] An undercover officer claims he heard one of the unarmed man's companions threaten to get his gun to settle a fight with another individual.


• On November 12, 2007, five NYPD police officers shot and killed 18-year-old Khiel Coppin. The officers responded to a 911 call where Coppin could be heard saying he had a gun. When the officers arrived at the scene, Khiel approached officers with a black object, which was later identified as a hairbrush, in his hand and repeatedly ignored orders to stop. This prompted officers to open fire at Coppin. Of the 20 shots fired, 8 hit Khiel, who died at the scene. This shooting has been ruled to be with both NYPD rules for the use of deadly force and the New York State Penal Law provisions, so no charges, criminal or administrative, will be filed against these officers.

It took my about 15 seconds to pull that information from Wikipedia, citing homicides committed with NYPD-issued (and therefore, presumably legal) firearms.

New York also has hundreds of homicides per year and shotguns and rifles are not illegal to buy, sell, or own within city limits, so even the claim that civilian homicides are all performed with illegally-owned firearms is also very suspect.

There is also the pesky little problem that not all firearms used in homicides are recovered, making it impossible to tell if the firearm used was illegally or legally owned.

Nice job vetting your story, Reuters. You're great stenographers, even if you aren't very good journalists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:51 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 745 words, total size 5 kb.

From WRAL:

A teen arrested in the death of a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student has also been charged in connection with the death of a Duke University graduate student.

Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr., 17, of 1213 Shepherd St., was arrested Thursday morning and charged with murder in UNC Student Body President Eve Carson's March 5 death. Authorities also charged him in connection with the January shooting death of Duke student Abhijit Mahato.

I'd like to know if investigators intend to ask Lovette and fellow Eve Carson murder suspect Demario James Atwater why they targeted college students.

Think it had anything to do with the strong suspicion that their victims would be unarmed?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting.

Posted by: dude at March 13, 2008 02:30 PM (MyDKI)

2 Really? I think the distinct possibility that we have two dead students--and several more the victims of armed robbers just this week alone--inside campus grounds because students are known to be unarmed (whereas the general population in the area outside of these campuses is well known to contain the second-highest concentration of concealed carry permit holders in the state) is certainly a topic worth discussing. Or would you rather that more students be targeted because you don't want to ask difficult questions? Somehow, I suspect I know the answer...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 02:42 PM (xNV2a)

3 I'd just say that the Research Triangle is becoming a dangerous place to be a student...

Posted by: Techie at March 13, 2008 02:46 PM (AV8Z6)

4 For what it's worth even if they were allowed too, alot of students would choose NOT to carry a gun, even at their own peril. Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one. It's sad though, these people are constant targets to resentful townie's and other predators.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 03:53 PM (6x0Nb)

5 Having lived in the Triangle for the past 5 years going graduate school at NC State, I can tell you this violence is nothing new at all. Pretty much weekly we would have armed robberies on campus, and the tactics were becoming more and more brazen (one of the last incidents I remember, was two youths with guns robbing a group of 10 or so students). Murders happened and made the news for a day or so. What makes this situation different is it was a pretty blond up and coming girl from a well to do family that was murdered. Not guns or availability of them. Durham has some areas even the police will not go to. Though my wife was doing her residency at Duke we purposely chose to live over 30 minutes away from there, and even then the crime was reaching out. Ask yourself, how many murders happen in the US in a day, then ask yourself how many of them make the spotlight unless they are of a pretty white female..

Posted by: jambrowski at March 13, 2008 05:01 PM (QBqlm)

6 "Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one." Both victims were over 21, neither has been shown to have a criminal record and both were residents of North Carolina for at least 30 days. More than likely, both victims would have been eligible. There is no way to know if they were inclined to exercise their rights, but they should have the option.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 05:13 PM (vmEFO)

7 Even if you are not a resident, and live on campus, all you have to do is get an NC state drivers license. You are then eligible to receive a CCW. NC is a shall issue, and an open carry state, so even if they could not get CCW, they can legally open carry anyplace that is not deemed gun free. Echoing Dog, but with a bit less tact. If they are allowed, but choose not to, then that is a failing on their part.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (9V6Vj)

8 And, of course, even if only 5% of the students availed themselves of their right to concealed-carry, the criminals wouldn't know *which* 5% carries, so would be deterred from all of them.

Posted by: Zach at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (lHN8H)

9 It's news because random murders like these are statistically rare. Something like 60% of all murders are black men killing other black men. That's terrible, but it's not news because it happens with such frequency. There are very few random murders, and very few black man/white woman random murders. Especially of blond, smart, prominent victims on a college campus.

Posted by: BarrySanders20 at March 13, 2008 05:47 PM (qrqy4)

10 Allowing CCW on campus would not increase the gun crime rate; that's a gunbanner myth. There's no one single jurisdiction where it's been approved that the crime rate went up as a result. In most places it's banned the real reason is ''because we can''.

Posted by: Orion at March 13, 2008 05:56 PM (FzhYM)

11 What are the Duke faculty saying about this?

Posted by: Dan Collins at March 13, 2008 05:59 PM (SohFK)

12 They're probably working on a resolution to condemn the victim for being part of the oppressive white establishment that forced these two young men down the path of violence.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM (vmEFO)

13 BarrySanders20 is a fool, black on white crime has exploded exponentially in the past two decades. Fact, a white woman is 115 TIMES more likely to be raped by a black man than if the races were reversed. This is according to Gov't crime statistics that they are trying hard not to get into the MSM, look it up, fool!

Posted by: libsukbad at March 13, 2008 06:05 PM (Uu7ag)

14 The Triangle has some great areas and some quite bad areas. Duke has some very dangerous areas right next to the campus. A friend of mine (a female grad student) was robbed at knifepoint walking home for lunch from campus. Broad daylight. UNC is safer, but yeah there's a lot of racial tension in the area. Franklin Street is the hangout area. On a typical Friday night going down that one street, you hit first the student area, then there is a stretch where local black kids hang out, then there is the section for young adult white townies. You can see all the racial and class divisions laid out very clearly on any weekend night. There's more resentment to the Duke students since they tend to be richer and from NY/New Jersey. When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men. Most of the girls I dated were scared to go to Durham. A lot of very aggressive panhandling and begging. The black panhandlers stayed near campus, while the white mountain man panhandlers tended to stay on the intersection near the local Wal-mart. Oddest form of self-segregation I'd ever seen. Personally, I'm a big fan of Southern liberal college towns. I like having over-educated waiters and plentiful live music -- and the surrounding Southern culture prevents the college town from going totally crazy.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:08 PM (Uxplv)

15 In the account of the crime I read, Ms. Carson was said to have been set upon by the beast around five in the morning -- before dawn, while out alone and at an ATM machine. If such are the facts, this fine young lady showed a lamentable want of good judgment. To linger alone, and in the dark, near an ATM is to court danger, whether you be a woman or a man, and whether the neighborhood be good or bad. May Ms. Carson rest in peace.

Posted by: Silber Streak at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (sFrPS)

16 What has struck me since moving to the Triangle is how lax the court system is here. Over and over you read stories of murders or rapes that are committed by people either out on bail or who have multiple convictions for breaking and entering, A&B, or armed robbery. If the court system in Wake and Durham counties would focus more on locking people up than letting them go, we might have less of this nonsense.

Posted by: YankeeConfederate at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (neulw)

17 dude, We have more than two dead students; We have unarmed dead student after unarmed dead student for as far back as you want to look. And you complain because someone is looking at how this happens? Disgusting.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (RO9Ei)

18 "When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men.' I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's. You did tend to see a concentration of older, poorer folks around that place, but they tended to stay there. At that time, crime was pretty rare, and the Franklin Street merchants were vigilant about getting panhandlers off the streets and away from the students/shoppers. Street musicians were always there, but they were not only non-threatening, but usually pretty talented. Where else can you hear bagpipes playing at 1 am? When I went back for a conference in 2003 or so, the mood had changed. The panhandlers were younger, far greater in number, and far more aggressive. I didn't see any attempts being made to get them off the benches or to stop them from harassing people on the street. I was both surprised and saddened to feel so harassed while walking so close to campus in the daytime. I used to walk home at 3 in the morning there and not worry about it. Looks like things have really changed.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (snOiD)

19 The primary animal in this case was on 24 months probation for a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. That's a Federal crime folks, and I believe it is a felony under North Carolina law as well. Somewhere out there is a judge who handed down a pathetic sentence and a DA who accepted it, and didn't refer the case to the Feds. Both should share in the murderer's punishment.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 13, 2008 06:30 PM (3Aj1g)

20 "I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's." I have been in NC off and on since the late 90s, and I agree, things have changed a good bit. I am in Jacksonville, back when I first got stationed here it wasnt too bad. I could take a date out, walk around all night and people would tend to leave you alone (minus the occasional drunk Marine in a bar hitting on your woman). A year or so ago a skinny little guy tried to mug my then soon to be wife while we were out walking our dog. I do not know what kind of idiot tries to mug a large bald guy walking a 95 pound GSD, but it happened. Maybe things aren't getting worse. Maybe the criminals are just getting dumber?

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:33 PM (9V6Vj)

21 I remember talking to one of the shop owners there on Franklin St. He'd complained to the town council when they installed those benches -- he said the homeless guys would just sit there all day and intimidate his customers. Especially since his business catered primarily to women ... but Chapel Hill told him he was being bigoted and installed them anyway. I was there from 2001-2005. I felt safest in Chapel Hill. In Durham several times panhandlers would follow me to my car coming out of a bar late at night asking for money. Not a pleasant feeling. I didn't feel safe there alone as a guy, so I understand why so many of the girls I knew were afraid to go. Southern college towns have that mix of young well-educated super liberal whites, and poor blacks ... so they tend to be very lenient to things like aggressive panhandling. At least that's my experience. Plus, the relatively wealthy young white college kids (especially the girls) give the beggars money cause they feel guilty for being ... white and better off. Just to be clear, though. I loved my time there. And although some parts are sketchy ... nothing's as bad as when I dated a girl who was studying at Johns Hopkins in downtown Baltimore. Oh, man. Baltimore is terrifying outside of the Inner Harbor and Camden Yards. Some parts are like Escape From New York. Everything is just decaying.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:42 PM (Uxplv)

22 Dude, how would you define the term "cheap shot"?

Posted by: buddy larsen at March 13, 2008 06:45 PM (5wL8o)

23 I was in Peppers Pizza on Franklin Street last fall. It was a Saturday afternoon and a beautiful day - full of families, students, etc. A homeless black man came in (I mention race only in the context of the story) and started trying to panhandle from the people eating. A man I assume to be the manager (also a black man) came over and politely but firmly told the guy he needed to go. The homeless guy started screaming F him and how no black people (he used the n word) were welcome there and he would kill anyone who disrespected him and on and on and on. I was sitting there with my wife and 3 month old daughter and was certain violence was going to break out. Fortunately, someone snagged a foot patrol of Chapel Hill police and they managed to get the guy out of there and took him into what looked like protective custody. That was the first time I did not feel safe in the Triangle. I wish the law and order crowd was a bit more vocal and stronger down here.

Posted by: local at March 13, 2008 06:56 PM (neulw)

24 In the early '80s we had a rash of armed robbery on and around Vanderbilt campus. The fellow knew he had a lot of fairly well-off unarmed kids he could scare and intimidate. This only stopped when a plain-clothes campus cop put six holes in him durring another attempted robbery of what he most certainly thought was an unarmed student. Bad guys are motivated by risk and fear. Do nothing to affect either and you just get more and bolder bad guys.

Posted by: s at March 13, 2008 07:04 PM (ljAGw)

25 A small point: a weapon and a CCW do nothing to protect you and the people around you. Unless -- -- you have sufficient training to know what to do and how to do it. You have to be alert enough to the situation, be able to stay calm and read the situation correctly, be able to draw your weapon without getting plugged whilst reaching for it, level, aim, shoot, and hit what you're shooting at. If you can't do those things, you're pretty much useless, or worse, a danger to everyone else. I write that and it sounds obvious, but it really isn't when people talk about CCW and shall-issue. It's not enough to buy a pistol and pack heat. And so the question becomes, just how many people have the inner skills and the training to be useful in a terrible emergency? Not as many as buy a pistol for 'protection'. Near where I live (northern Illinois) we had a terrible shooting at the University. The shooter was a nutter, of course, and all the students could do is hide and run. But even if one of them had had a pistol, there's no guarantee at all that the outcome would have been different. My point, I hope, is a simple one: it's not sufficient to have CCW. We need a sea-change in attitude and mindset. One in which more of our citizens, sober, careful, determined, and perhaps a little grim, ensure that in an emergency, they can be useful. If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steve White at March 13, 2008 07:44 PM (wJgSR)

26 I've lived in Durham since 1976, off and on. I've worked as a reporter and I've been part of the community, walking alone downtown at night, for three decades. Yes, I've seen aggressive panhandlers. Yes, I've seen groups of young men who made me uneasy. Yes, our house was burglarized in 1983. But in 30 years I've never seen anyone so much as slapped. That's not to say there isn't violent crime, but all of you who afraid to come to Durham need to get a grip. This isn't Newark. In a few weeks, downtown Durham will be filled with film makers, from Martin Scorcese to young unknowns with a camera and a dream, for the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. They're not afraid. The Triangle is growing and there's a lot of money and a lot of poverty. Gangs have marked their turf and sociopaths know where to pick up a gun. This group of communities numbers more than a million. Yes, there are tensions. But why do so many of you choose to live your lives in fear? I thought this was the home of the brave. You know, Michael Peterson killed his wife and people weren't suddenly afraid of white novelists, thank God, or I'd never get another party invitation. The reason people around here are so focused on the murder of Eve Carson has less to do with her being an attractive white girl than it does the senseless waste of a brilliant, engaging leader with more promise than 100 of her classmates put together. I can't speak for Nancy Grace's obsession. That woman's just crazy.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:03 PM (Bx4FB)

27 "God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting. " You obviously don't get it - it's not about a "pro gun" aggenda, it's about a "FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP PASSING STUPID LAWS THAT RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO USE EFFECTIVE FORCE AND EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO DEFEND OURSELVES!" agenda. People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue. I'm sure his comments aren't the "only" thing he can think of - but they're certainly one of the more obvious -- at least to us responsible adults who actually have to live in the real world vs. sticking our heads in the sand.

Posted by: Tim in TX at March 13, 2008 08:15 PM (Bo+Bw)

28 "If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter." This is very true. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. No one, not one single person, can honestly say how they will react to a given situation, until they have been in it, and most of the time they will not have reacted the way they wanted to. If you have not mentally prepared yourself to act, then you will not. If you do not act, then that weapon WILL be used against you. Simply going to the range and blowing off a thousand rounds a weekend will not prepare you to defend yourself. I am an assistant instructor at the MSOS, and I teach part time at one of the local ranges. When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves. Defense is a mindset, if you do not have it, then you will die, and you are a liability to those around you. in a stressful situation your accuracy will drop between 50 and 70%. Simply plinking targets will not help you with this.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:18 PM (9V6Vj)

29 Amen, Matt. I shoot well for a weekend plinker and feel quite qualified to defend myself against any intruder as long as they stand still at 15 yards and hold an orange dot against their center mass. The first time I was fired on I instantly became one with the earth, my molecules integrating with the dirt, desiring nothing more than to be invisible to the rounds smacking over my head. It seemed like hours before I thought to return fire and by then it was over. That's after six months of training.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:26 PM (Bx4FB)

30 David, I thank you for your candor. There are not many that can speak with modesty. It is an odd feeling, is it not? "People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue" Ok, it is story time. Several years ago I was in Fallujah during the second push as well as after the push. After the push the theater commander decided that he was going to rescind the law governing weapons in the hands of the people (that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops. As a Corporal at the time I obviously had no say in the matter, but I thought it was insanely frigging stupid. Did I say it was a stupid idea? Ok I did. That may be part of the reason I am still a Sergeant after ten years of service. Well anyway. Once that command was given we saw a FRIGGING huge jump in SVBIEDs (if you don't know what that is Google it). Come to find out, the bad guys found out about this new "law" and exploited it. Because the honest civilian populous was nolonger armed, they were able to walk into any house on the block, yoke up momma and kiddies, then say "Drive this car into that ECP or momma dies." After a bit of time, we dumped this stupid frigging law, and allowed the civilan populace to own and carry again. Guess what? We started to find more dead bad guys in the alleys, and the SVBIEDs tapered off. I frigging wonder why? Care to take a guess? I know that the U.S. is NOT Iraq. But the lesson is the SAME FRIGGING ONE WE HAVE TO LEARN HERE!

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:59 PM (9V6Vj)

31 "(that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops." Crap, I am an idiot. That did not make any sense at all. It should have read. (the previous law said every fighting aged male was allowed ect) but we took the weapons away because we wanted to make sure that only the bad guys had guns so we didnt shoot the wrong people.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:02 PM (9V6Vj)

32 Ha. It's OK, Matt, I got the drift. God forbid I get held up for my drunken syntax at 10 pm. I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences. Here in the US, training is all. I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school), but if you even suggest this, the 2nd Amendment absolutists burst into flames. I don't know. I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand. I think these two b*stards are just sociopaths doing a bit of B&E. We'll see. But I don't think gun laws have anything to do with their crime, unless it is the ease with which bad actors like these can get their hands on one. Anyone want to bet it was stolen? I'll give good odds.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 09:15 PM (Bx4FB)

33 David. You seem to be a good egg. You really do. All I am saying is please be prepared to use, if you have to. I do not think that any classes should be required to carry, encouraged by a tax credit or something if you do receive professional training, but not required. Owning is a right, you can not require something, when it is a right. "I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences." I hear ya brother. It would have been shitty call, either way they went. I want to bring everyone home. But at the same time, I don't want to restrict the rights of honest people. That was the point of my idiocy above. "I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school)," Nothing wrong with either of those weapons. I own them myself, and CC a full sized Kimber Custom Covert II (hey I am a big guy, I can CC a 1911). But good training is a must, IMHO, and if you are ever down in J-Ville, and near the Sports Mans lodge, I will give ya all the training you need. Or if you want to go the harder route, join the Corps, do a few years in the grunts. Then come to RSAS, and after ya pass that you will see me at the MSOS (that place is a black hole that I will never get out of). "I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand." Well of course not, and please do not get me started on the non existent problem that the .40 attempts to solve. But in all seriousness. Be it BnE, or whatever. If she had owned, and had been trained. She may have lived. If she died after that, at least she went out like she came in. Fighting. Even with all the insane gun-laws we have, it is still easier to get a weapon off the street than it is to get one legally. But, it does tend to cost a bit more (depending on what you want). Give me seven hundred and I can get you a Glock 30 with no serial. Take 550 and go through getting a permit, then after waiting for a permit, you can buy your weapon (some states differ). Gun laws only keep honest people honest. Nothing more.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:34 PM (9V6Vj)

34 Not that Ms. Carson's unfortunate judgment would help anyone, but as to being armed, whether or not you are a sharp marksmen, or even armed personally, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the criminal has a reasonable expectation that his efforts *might* be met with deadly force. Criminals understand logic, too, folks. Their moral judgment may be twisted, but their logical judgment is often reasonably sound. Save for the occasional Chicago or VaTech psycho who gives little or no warning before completely losing his grasp on reality, most criminals commit crime with the expectation of getting a reward out of it. The reward may be an economic gain, a material gain, sexual gratification, or simply the adrenaline rush from getting away with an act of violence, but there is an expectation of getting a reward. Similarly, when there is a negative incentive, crime is less likely to occur. An average wallet-and-car-keys theft is generally committed by someone who has an expectation of getting rich today, and generally not by someone who expects he might get shot. It doesn't mean the victim MUST be carrying. It just means that there is a real and randomized uncertainty as to whether the victim MIGHT be carrying. And if given a choice between a random citizen who might be carrying, and a naiive coed who is almost guaranteed not to be on account of well-known school policies, the criminal picks the easy target nine out of ten times. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, except possibly for self-blinded ideologues.

Posted by: anony_mouse_ at March 13, 2008 10:10 PM (WPfpc)

35 As a Duke alum who also is a strong 2nd amendment and pro-gun advocate, I must also admit that instinctively my first thought to this post (which I agree does raise a topic worth discussing) was, oh hell no, with all the frats and sororities and the heavy partying and extreme drunkenness that goes with it I would not want guns on campus.

Posted by: ER at March 13, 2008 10:15 PM (AiJT0)

36 Matt wrote: "When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves." I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire.

Posted by: Ripper at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM (8FvLX)

37 Steve, Matt, David, Ripper et al., Your comments are true from the point of view of the possessor of the CCW permit. However, if the restrictions against concealed carry by CCW permit holders on campus are removed or annulled then the dirtbags searching for easy targets no longer have reason to assume that the local college campus is full of them. The risk/reward equation tilts toward going elsewhere. Though practicing fast draw and target acquisition is a very good thing for the permit holder to do, most of the guys you're worrying about aren't thinking "I can probably get them before they get me." They're thinking "I might get killed." While shooting these characters may be satisfying, better that they should all go to DC and start robbing city council members. ER, One thing made VERY clear in the CCW classes is that if you start waving your firearm around while drunk the permit is gone for a long long time if not permanently. That however raises the heavily ironic possibility of a guy attacking someone from the unarmed party sorority being blown away by someone from Kappa Kappa Gamma or Hillel.

Posted by: Ed Nutter at March 13, 2008 10:54 PM (hI6PN)

38 It wonders me. Why, in every discussion of right to carry VS "Free Fire Zones" the ratbag scum committing the (insert violent crime of choice here___________) with a gun in his hand couldn't miss a flea on a running mongrel's ear at five hundred yards, but someone who wants to carry a defensive gun couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Someone wanna 'splain it to me?

Posted by: Gerry N. at March 14, 2008 12:47 AM (wearR)

39 Abhijit Mahato and Eve Carson both lived off campus. Mahato was found shot dead in his apartment. Eve was found shot dead several blocks from her home, wearing a t-shirt and no jacket. LE says the ATM photos show the driver and someone else behind him with his back to the camera. I think Eve was abducted from her home, taken to the ATM, and was being held at gunpoint by the guy in back with her. I think both murders could have been prevented if the victims had guns they knew how to use at hand.

Posted by: DebinNC at March 14, 2008 01:37 AM (9LDO4)

40 "I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire." Well that is pretty frigging stupid. No offense, but I hate Cali, I hated it when I was there, I hated it when I went back, and I do not see much changing. But maybe I am missing something here. But just because they will not let you quick draw, does not mean you can not snap in on your own. Even allowing the weapon do drop down to your side, then rapidly acquiring the target will help. That is not rapid fire . "They're thinking "I might get killed." Call it a fringe benefit. "Someone wanna 'splain it to me?" First off, who said anything of the sort? Secondly. If a bad guy is trying to rob ten people, aims at one, but hits another, then he did not miss. But if someone is carrying legally, fires on the bad guy, misses, and the projectile hits little old lady crossing the street, then he/she frigging missed.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:33 AM (9V6Vj)

41 After listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons, I wonder why there is not more of this type of crime every day, everywhere where oblivious young white women come into close contact with young black men full of violence and entitlement-fueled hatred.

Posted by: Al Fin at March 14, 2008 07:51 AM (6PCBb)

42 David, your initial reaction to being shot at is one of the reasons for CCW. If you have a gun, but aren't ready to use it (and nobody is really ready, the first time), you become a ventilated ammo depot and source of a shiny new sidearm for the crooks... IF they know you have a gun. One cowering victim looks pretty much like another to a gun-wielding crook, as long as you aren't open carrying (or wearing a police/army uniform, waving your gun like a flag, etc). Most criminals aren't going to pat people down for extra weapons; they're in an even bigger hurry than their victims, which is why "WALLETS! NOW!!" is usually all you'll get out of them. CCW, if you take the "concealed" part seriously, will keep you alive (if victimized) in your critical first encounter, and more importantly, keep your gun out of the hands of people more willing to use it.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at March 14, 2008 09:11 AM (8Aysa)

43 "(and nobody is really ready, the first time)" Much of the time they are not ready the second or third or fourth time either. But there are things you can do to help prepare yourself.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:56 PM (9V6Vj)

44 Will the Take Back The Night clowns, the Duke faculty fools, and other dopey Durham activists who held canfdlelight vigils and marches against the falsely accused Duke lacrosse guys (ostensibly to protest abuse of women) even make a peep about this case? I doubt it.

Posted by: MJ at March 14, 2008 08:38 PM (AiJXe)

45 What the hell is wrong with you people? This is not a gun control issue, this is about a society that is fundamentally BROKEN. It's about two people who should've never been born because their parents were clearly not up to the task of raising two actual HUMAN BEINGS. Do you really think arming students is going to change what is at the root of senseless acts of violence like this? If you do, you're an idiot. For Christ's sake, wake the hell up and think about why we have so much senseless violence in this country. It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws. It's about raising children to be decent human beings and not pieces of human excrement like the two scumbags who took this beautiful life. Duh.

Posted by: Mark at March 17, 2008 10:33 PM (H02wZ)

46 "It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws." There sir you are incorrect. While things may have turned out different if their parents would have parented them, there is not much you can do to change that. There will always be bad parents. We attempt to educate people, we do what we can to make good parents. But the bottom line here is this, you can not make people do the right things. But you can give honest people the tools to protect themselves against idiots.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:51 PM (9V6Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I see N.C. State's new $250,000 WolfAlert system is having an effect on campus crime.

Or not:

Police at North Carolina State University are being especially alert after two armed robberies in two days, and they are urging the university community to do the same.

Investigators said one victim, a graduate student, was leaving a building on the Centennial Campus when two men armed with a handgun demanded his wallet late Tuesday afternoon.

Two male students told police they were near 2110 Avent Ferry Road at about 9 p.m.Monday when a man wearing a mask and armed with a knife robbed them.

In a chilling near parallel to the recent murder of UNC student body president Eve Carson, NCSU student Natasha Herting (running for student body president) and her roommates were victimized in an break-in of their off-campus apartment, leaving her to state:

"It was really scary just to think that you have no control – that someone could be in your apartment and you have four girls alone," she said.

The statement, of course is false. Four girls share that apartment, but they do have the legal option to assert control over the situation, even if they lack the inclination to assert that right.

Like everyone in North Carolina over the age of 18 who does not have a criminal or mental health record, Herting has the legal right—and one may argue, moral responsibility—to provide for her own safety by obtaining a firearm, learning to use it, and learning North Carolina's self defense laws.

As she and her roommates live in an off-campus apartment and are not subject to the restrictions of university-wide gun free free-crime zones, she very well could put herself in a position where at least she has some control over threats to her life.

Students on campus, unfortunately do not have such an option, a fact that criminals are are too well aware of.

Update: Durham police have detained a "person of intrest" in the Eve Carson murder case. The WTVD story is here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

Thanks clearing that up, as I was a bit confused.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

Not that it matters, but Reuter's reporter Tim Gaynor interviewed two men from Douglas, Arizona in this article, Alex Black and fellow gun collector Lynn Kartchner. For whatever reason, Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo.

Perhaps ironically, another photo that was shot for the story shows a customer in a Cabela's store in Forth Worth, Texas, features Cabela's salesperson Larry Allen showing a customer a handgun.

The firearm in question? A Taurus revolver marketed as "The Judge" which gained it's name according to Taurus, "because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection."

The judges that prefer this revolver, presumably, are not just urban criminals and drug dealers.

Update: I would probably be remiss not to mention that like the author, I too, would like to see gun control advocacy made an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

1 We Americans forget that the vast majority of Europe gives up it's political rights and freedoms pretty frequently, historically speaking. In our parents lifetime, Spain, Germany, Italy, the Eastern Block states, etc have all surrendered their political and human rights.

Posted by: Techie at March 12, 2008 10:15 AM (AV8Z6)

2 The article is actually very objective, amazing coming from Reuters. They didn't offer any "balance" by having a member of the Brady organization comment, for example. I thought the article was remarkably fair for the MSM.

Posted by: Robert at March 12, 2008 10:42 AM (hcsKC)

3 I carry a pistol, and I can guarantee you that it is NOT to protect me from NRA members or, legal permit holders.

Posted by: Joe Justice at March 12, 2008 10:45 AM (XLlwa)

4 Aw, c'mon! Why can't you all just admit to your inferiority and enslave yourselves to your betters?? Yeesh! I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) whenever and wherever it's lawful to do so. And I'll continue to do so...I don't think I qualify as an urban criminal or a drug dealer...I'm a teacher, a businessman, a firefighter, EMT, and a Soldier. None of which are probably popular with Europeans. Orion

Posted by: Orion at March 12, 2008 10:53 AM (urNkV)

5 And, you know, *hobbyists*. I don't carry, hunt, or collect, but I do shoot (at the range) for fun.

Posted by: Kai Jones at March 12, 2008 11:09 AM (//srd)

6 As Ted Nugent says, if the only use for a firearm is to kill another human being, all of mine are defective. I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at March 12, 2008 11:14 AM (sdVks)

7 "he vast majority of Europe gives up it's (sic) political rights and freedoms pretty frequently" I have always felt that a great gulf between American and European sensibilities vis-a-vis government, rights and freedoms is informed by the fact that, as a society, we do not share the historical experience and culture of feudalism. For thousands of years and numerous generations many Europeans were mere chattel to the government and institutions, and the political culture that grew from that reality is still largly authoritarian, controlling and elitist. In America, however, many who built our political machinery have their cultural roots in specifically leaving behind feudalism and even actively fighting against its long reach.

Posted by: submandave at March 12, 2008 11:26 AM (UdYT0)

8 I once met a group of soldiers on holiday in Mexico; they came from England and the Netherlands. We got drunk and talked politics. They told me that the United States has an advantage over Europe, politically, because we were lucky enough to invent our government while they merely inherited theirs, with 2000 years of warts. They seemed a tad envious.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2008 11:36 AM (tT2sa)

9 It does appear that they seem actually surprised about this novel Sociological discovery of theirs, almost at the level of, “Whoa! Gun owners can read and write, and they use SPOONS too!” One real subtext of the story is that Americans maintain a vibrant interest in our actual History and the means by which we maintain our independence. That is reflected in that same story-context is that Teh Yuropeen's are so ultra sophisticated and suffused with *it* they are disdainful and “over” History. Well, History may be done with them too as Eurabia takes over. They remind me of the foppish idiots posturing in glossy Vanity Fair couture ads - hapless fashion victims.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at March 12, 2008 12:06 PM (VNM5w)

10 The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM (dOpeP)

11 None of you has mentioned the fact that all the Europeans who refused to give up their freedoms to the various tyrants either died fighting them or came here. We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free.

Posted by: Mike K at March 12, 2008 12:31 PM (erFnD)

12 Jeffersonian said: I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o)

Posted by: Don at March 12, 2008 12:34 PM (zS9LP)

13 Well the reason for calling it the judge really ruined it for me. I always thought it was named the judge because it's the last thing a criminal wants to see aka the judge. Or even better would be the other two guns I wanted released by Taurus... The Jury, and The Executioner. Don't worry, they'll fire this reporter for being a gun lover soon enough.

Posted by: drdoct at March 12, 2008 12:36 PM (vYL+n)

14 84 gun deaths a day? 34 by homicide? Do we really think there are more accidental gun deaths than homicides in the US each day? Where did they get their facts? Something stinks here. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at March 12, 2008 12:37 PM (Pyd3M)

15 Is it true that Europeans EAT THEIR DEAD?

Posted by: Apollo at March 12, 2008 12:42 PM (PoTAh)

16 Mike K, The gene pool is selected as you note. However it is subject to the same degeneration so prevalent in Europe. See the faculty of any Ivy League university for concentrated examples.

Posted by: Right Wing Nutter at March 12, 2008 12:45 PM (hI6PN)

17 Actually, the problem has always been in the numbers. When you have 300 million citizens and a 30k die every year, even from unnatural causes like "gun related homicide", it's really not the great tragedy, as cold as that may sound. Further, notice how he splits out his numbers regarding "gun deaths" and "gun homicides". If you didn't know, suicide is the number one gun related death (54% I believe) in the United States per the Bureau of Statistics and spiked considerably after 9/11/01. Which is not unusual either. Why aren't people demanding gun control laws? Ask yourselves, as you read this blog, how many of you personally know someone who was shot and/or killed with a gun? Not related to military experience, that is. It's about 1 in 10,000. Not an epidemic. Certainly, not a good reason to change or damage a constitutional right.

Posted by: kat-missouri at March 12, 2008 01:02 PM (ZOc4K)

18 Subsunk, don't forget suicide. The gun is quite handy for suicide. Although most suicide I saw was brought on by health issues. Seems that some folks don't want to wait around for cancer.

Posted by: Peter at March 12, 2008 01:10 PM (d/RyS)

19 Mike K said: We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free. Agreed . Another way in which the gene pool is selected is for religion. For those Europeans for whom religion was important, but who disagreed with the state religions of the countries they were born in, many came to the US where they could practice their faith without government interference. Many Europeans who were not strong believers in the state religions, to whom religion was a matter of indifference , so that they did not feel degraded to outwardly conform to the state religions ( I obey but I do not comply), stayed in Europe. So the gene pool in Europe has been self-selected for indifference to religion, as the gene pool in the US has been self-selected for those to whom religion is important. I am an American and an agnostic, but I do not feel the hostility towards believers that many in Europe do.

Posted by: Gringo at March 12, 2008 02:35 PM (w5N3E)

20 The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. Elimination of guns would turn most of those into drug overdoses, etc., and not reduce the number.

Posted by: Byron at March 12, 2008 02:51 PM (9oU1J)

21 When I first heard about gun control in a 9th grade Civics class (in 1949) I brought up the subject at dinner that evening - blindly following my teacher's influence (she was all for it; and a dyed in the wool liberal - an admirer of Claude Pepper). My dad - whose role in life was to teach us to think for ourselves - said, "Honey, if you wanted to take over a country whose populace was armed, what would be the first thing you would do?" "Get rid of the guns?" I answered. (Duh!) "Yes!" my father said, beaming at me - his belatedly smart offspring. As long as a large portion of our country is armed, that's as long as we will remain free. A note to the "guns are evil" crowd: We also keep you free!

Posted by: Shi at March 12, 2008 02:53 PM (MiqvT)

22 I think Taurus is kidding about the origin of the Judge's name. I don't remember it being marketed under any other name (though it bears a resemblance to the Thunder Five); how were judges buying it before it was available? Oh, and: Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o) Brilliant. Wish like heck I'd written that.

Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood at March 12, 2008 03:19 PM (tEYz8)

23 "Perhaps ironically, another photo that" I know the media gets it wrong all the time. But that is not an AK 47. AK 47s have milled receivers, that is a stamped receiver. But then again it is not a true AKM either because it is not select fire. Looks to be a parts gun made from a Yugo built barrel and receiver and more than likely U.S. manufactured trigger and bolt groups. In echoing many of the others. I am in the military, hold a TS-SCI, and I carry a Kimber Custom Covert II (legally). Am I somehow a criminal? "I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) " Good piece, but I prefer the full five inch. I also own every standard issue service rifle the U.S. has ever issued, and am now working on my Russian collection. "The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners. posted by Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM" This was not me. The real Matt

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:05 PM (9V6Vj)

24 Personally, I carry a copy of It Takes a Village with me for self defense, and read it aloud to attackers.

Posted by: mike at March 12, 2008 05:10 PM (kcdgj)

25 Sorry I quoted the wrong picture. I meant to put this one up. "Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo."

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:11 PM (9V6Vj)

26 Most of the gun death statistics fall into four categories: 1)murder of victims, 2) homicide of criminals by victims, 3)suicides, and 4) accidents. The accidental death/injury toll is rapidly declining, and the criminals are being shot by more and more victims, due to concealed-carry laws. These are good trends. If the suicidal people do not have guns, they have unlimited other methods. The bottom line is, most of the people getting shot now deserve it.

Posted by: lynn kartchner at March 13, 2008 04:27 PM (vV+G9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment