Shedding the Light on Concealed Handguns - Again

The same post at The War on Guns that prompted the rant below also reminded me of this. For those who don't remember, or aren't from here in the Blacksburg/Roanoke area, Christian Trejbal wrote a column on March 11, 2007 called Shedding Light On Concealed Handguns, in which, as part of "reflect[ing] on the importance of open government and public records" he used the process of obtaining a statewide list of concealed handgun permit holders to demonstrate how open government is beneficial. Then he published the entire list on the paper's website, complete with addresses!

Needless to say, a great public outcry followed. (The paper's blog comments are here.) One of the loudest outcries was that many of the people on the list had a permit because of an abusive ex-spouse or ex-significant other, who now had access to their most recent address. The outcry was such that the Roanoke Times removed the list the next day. They claim they did so because:

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”

Probably just to avoid lawsuits when some ex-spouse goes to his ex's home and attacks her because he got the address from their site.

It looks like the Medford Mail Tribune is getting ready to do the same thing, and they've won the court case to get the list. For the whole story, go to The War on Guns.

This Just Makes Me Mad

I stumbled on this old editorial (from the Medford Mail Tribune, 12 Sept 07) from the blog The War on Guns. There are so many things about this that make me mad, it's hard to figure out where to begin. A quick summary:

The teacher reportedly is afraid of her ex-husband, whom she has served with a restraining order. After district officials reminded the teacher of district policy and told her not to bring a gun to school, she contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation and a Portland attorney, who says he will ask a Jackson County judge to declare the district's policy illegal. He says state law specifically declares that only the Legislature has the power to regulate firearms.

The Legislature also both banned guns from schools, and exempted concealed carry permit holders from that ban.

Many of the usual anti-gunner "guns don't belong in schools" arguments follow. What really makes me mad though, is this:

The chances of an accidental shooting — or a gun making its way into the wrong hands, with tragic consequences — are far greater than the chances of an intruder bent on mayhem. And let's not forget — this isn't just about teachers. If the loophole remains, any person with a concealed handgun license could bring their gun to the next football game or parent-teacher conference. Is that a good thing?

He seems to ignore the fact that she's not afraid of just a random intruder. She's afraid of a specific person, namely her ex-husband. Although the article doesn't mention that he's made any specific threats against her, the fact that she's gotten a restraining order means it's very likely that he has.

He also ignores the fact that an "accidental" shooting, or the gun "making it's way into the wrong hands" can only happen if she takes the gun out. It's not going to "go off" in the holster. It's concealed. Even if, because of this idiot's article, someone knows she has it and wants to take it away, they won't know where she has it.

But what really, really pisses me off is this:

In the meantime, there is the question of the Medford teacher's situation and what risks it may pose to students, regardless of whether she is armed. If she is so afraid of her former husband that she feels the need to carry a gun at school, what threat might he pose to her students? Parents would be justified in asking that question, and school officials should be prepared to answer it.

He suddenly remembered that she's afraid of a specific person, and uses that to call for parents to complain as a way to try to get her fired for someone else's actions! There is no reason for this except sheer damned vindictiveness. She hasn't done anything herself except to dare to challenge the "holy writ" that "guns don't belong in schools."

I don't know how this story turned out, or how it stands today. But if this bastard succeded in getting her fired, every teacher in the country should be worried. If someone threatens you, whether you did anything or not, you may find your self out of a job!

Fresno Student Shot, Killed by Police Officer After Bat Attack

Full story here.

Here's what apparently happened:

A police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old high school student Wednesday after authorities said the teenager clubbed the officer with a baseball bat on the packed, urban campus.

The officer fired at the student shortly before noon, after the Roosevelt High School sophomore allegedly came from behind and struck the officer in the head with a crude wooden baseball bat, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

The officer fell down dazed, and reached for the gun in his hip holster, but the clip fell out.

As the student came at him a second time, the officer grabbed a secondary weapon — a semiautomatic handgun he carried as backup — from his ankle holster and fired one or two rounds, Dyer said. The student reportedly died within a few minutes.

As soon as I read the details, I knew there would be something like this:

Silvia Carrillo, whose daughter is a sophomore at Roosevelt High, said the shooting did not seem justified.

"My son and my brother went to school here too, and nothing like this ever happened. I think this wasn't enough for him to kill the kid," she said.

Let's get this straight: A baseball bat IS a deadly weapon. It can be used to kill you. He attacked a police officer with a deadly weapon. The officer was justified in responding with deadly force when his assailant moved to continue the attack.

The officer was injured, on the ground, with an assailant moving towards him with a deadly weapon. Any chance the officer might have had to hold the assailant off at gunpoint was lost when his primary weapon failed. By the time he was able to draw his backup weapon, the attacker was probably right on top of him, too close for a warning. Based on the facts available from the story, this sounds like a fully justified shooting.

Frankly, I'm surprised he had time to get the backup gun out without getting hit again. By necessity, an attacker with a baseball bat is only about 4 feet away when he hits his victim, maybe closer. Just at a guess, the attacker may have hesitated when the officer drew his primary weapon, and hesitated again from sheer surprise when the magazine fell out. This officer is very lucky he's still alive.

Pilot's Gun Fired in Cockpit

I know, I know, this happened a few weeks ago. I've been watching the news for more information since it happened, since the official line is always "We can't say anything until the investigation is done." I like to make sure that my opinions are as well informed as I can make them. Well, the investigation isn't done yet, but I've learned enough by now to have formed an opinion. However Michael Bane says it better than I can in his blog. Here are some excerpts:

First, a picture of the "safety" system the pilots are required to use.
From Michael Bane:

All true...my understanding is that the gun chosen for the pilots is the double-action-only version using H-K's LEM (Law Enforcement Module) system to lighten the DA pull. Here's the H-K catalog page.

What do we know about double-action only guns, whether they be semiautos or revolvers? Well, the first thing we know is that if you pull the trigger, the gun will go bang. The longer DA stroke guarantees that there has to be a deliberate pull of the trigger for the gun to fire.

Here's an important question...does it take a deliberate finger to pull a trigger? Ummmm, no...the trigger doesn't know or care what pulls it. You can pull a trigger with a pencil, a tree branch or the snagged tail of your shirt. People who carry pocket pistols not in a pocket holster have pulled the trigger with their pocket change. And consider the word "deliberate." A finger on the trigger can unintentionally fire a gun, say if the person whose finger is on the trigger is jossled or bumped, or if they have to grab with their weak hand, which can sometimes cause a sympathetic clinching of hand on the gun. Or let's say your finger is on the trigger when you attempt to reholster the gun...it'll go bang every time...probably the most common neglient discharge in the world.

That trigger thing is why we have moved to holsters for concealed carry and competition that fully cover the trigger guard, blocking access to the trigger. The harder it is to get to the trigger accidentally, the less likely the gun is going to go bang when we don't want it to.

What's another thing we've learned from the last 30 years of practical pistol shooting and the revolution in civilian training about gun safety? An important thing is to minimize the Futz Factor, loosely defined as "Every time you handle the gun, it has the opportunity to go off; reduce the times you handle the loaded gun, and you reduce the opportunities for a negligent discharge."

And:

This from the Crime Files News, one of the few tiny bits of information to leak out no damning the pilot or the gun:

The insane procedures required by the TSA demands that our pilots to lock and then un-lock their .40 side arms was and is a solid recipe for disaster. Did the TSA deliberately create this bizarre and unconventional Rube Goldberg firearm retention system hoping for this result? The sordid history of the FAA and TSA’s total resistance to the concept of arming pilots to protect Americans is in itself a scandal.

Putting a gun into a holster and then threading a padlock through the trigger and trigger-guard is required every time the pilots enter or leave the cockpit.

And, the most important point:

Let's talk about that holster now. Why do we cover the trigger guard? To keep something hard from coming in contact with the trigger. What would we call a holster that has a hole cut in it to allow a person to place a hard object that can potentially come in contact with the trigger of a gun that has no additional manual safety? Unsafe...or more appropriately, stupid.

Very very stupid.

And what would you think if a requirement of your job was to constantly remove such a holster and then place the hard steel bar of a lock through the holster and trigger guard, then remove the lock and redeploy the holster when you came back? Personally, I'd be pretty worried — as a firearms professional, I'd find this system guaranteed to fail. Sooner or later, it goes bang.

And it did.

For the full post, go to http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008/03/tsa-stupidity-puts-pilots-at-risk.html

While I do not believe the conspiracy theories that the TSA designed the rules hoping for something like this (because they've been opposed to the FFDO program from the beginning), the rules do seem to do everything possible to maximize the "futz factor" pointed out in Mr. Bane's article.

I can only add two things to his well written piece.

1) Trigger locks are inherently unsafe. They violate two of the cardinal rules of gun safety: Rule 1 - The gun is ALWAYS loaded; and Rule 3 - Keep your finger (or anything else) AWAY from the trigger until you are ready to fire.

2) Something I have believed for many years - Every gun should have a safety! Even with the (understandable under the circumstances) mistakes the pilot had to have made, a safety could have prevented this. Being double-action-only does not make a gun immune from accidental trigger pulls, or snags, or foreign objects making their way into the trigger guard! It only means that the gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. The gun does not care who or what pulls the trigger, if the trigger is pulled it will go bang!

Seasonable humor

I found this at www.wayfarersmoon.com (scroll past the comic).

A Friendly Reminder
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

From: Admiral Janicki
To: All Death Star Personnel
Re: Imperial Taxes

I have been asked to remind all Imperial personnel aboard the Death Star that today is April 15th and all personal taxes are due. In light of last year’s ‘Wookie Deduction’ debacle, the 3rd Imperial Tax Division (the Fighting 1040s) has asked me to pass on the following tax hints:

Cloned Stormtroopers may not claim each other as dependents, even though they are technically related.

Maintenance crews may only deduct one (1) Compacter Monster attack.

If strangled by Lord Vader and are:
Alive
Add two (2) to Row F: Near Death Experiences
Dead
Add one (1) to Row G: Actual Death Experiences

When computing dependents, droids do not count unless you are legally married to one.

If you are Lord Vader, please mark Box A ‘Sith Do Not Pay Taxes.’ Or not. Really, we’re cool either way.

You will check Box 7F ‘I want one dollar to go to the Emperor’s Party Fund.’ Failure to check this box will result in immediate execution.

When computing dependents, alien parasites only count if they are larger than a standard Stormtrooper helmet.

‘Helmet Hair,’ though a consistent problem for all Imperial troops, is not a valid deduction. ‘Armor Crotch’ is a valid deduction for Stormtroopers only.

Cheers,
-Jason

Links

I've added links to a couple of other interesting blogs I've found. I think they're interesting, at least.

What about Bush's manners?

I've read a lot of comments about Virginia Senator-Elect Jim Webb's "boorish" response to the President, but no one seems to have commented about the fact that the President also showed a lack of manners in that exchange. It seems to have started off politely enough. "How's your boy" is a reasonable and courteous question to ask someone whose son has been deployed to a war zone. Mr. Webb, however, did not wish to discuss this topic with President Bush. So he attempted to redirect the conversation. ("I'd like to get them out of Iraq.") Perhaps not the best response, but still, barely, within the bounds of courtesy. Here is where the President's manners failed him. Instead of taking the hint and moving on President Bush not only repeated the question but bluntly (and rudely) called attention to the attempt at redirection. ("That's not what I asked. How's your boy?") At this point Mr. Webb firmly, but equally bluntly, closed the topic. ("That's between my boy and me.") It should be noted that this is similar to the response he routinely gives reporters and others who ask about his son. Mr. Webb has, in fact, made it a point to not discuss his son with those outside his immediate circle.

Rudeness does not justify rudeness, but the President made it very difficult, if not impossible, for Mr. Webb to close the topic politely. I don't know that I could have done any better. Could you?

Wooo Who (That's _Dr._ Who, Thankyou!)

I just saw an announcement that the SciFi channel will be doing a new Dr. Who series, starting in March! I am definitely looking forward to seeing this. SciFi has done an excellent job with the new Battlestar Galactica series, and hopefully will do just as well with this classic series.
I must admit to a little bit of trepidation, however. SciFi is notoriously unreliable when it comes to quality. I still shudder at their adaptation of Dune, with the Batman tv series type cinematography (strange camera angles and single color lighting everytime they showed the Harkonen 'lair'). I couldn't finish watching the miniseries, it was so badly done.
Guess we'll find out soon. I'm keeping my hopes up for this one.

On Wiretaps and Warrants

I'm not a flaming liberal, really, I'm not. I'm anti gun-control, anti-abortion, and for personal responsibility. But I do think Bush has gone too far. I just read Ann Coulter's column "Why We Don't Trust You With National Security" and it finally crystallized my annoyance with those defending the President on this issue.
The most annoying thing is that they are missing the point of the criticisms against the wiretapping program, which is that the government could have initiated the taps without a warrant and then obtained one later. There would be no delay, and the court is allowed by law to operate in secrecy, so security is not compromised by allowing the proceedings to become public record before it is necesary. If these phone calls were to or from numbers linked by evidence to terrorist organizations (as the President claims), that fact alone should meet the requirements of probable cause for a warrant to be issued.
I agree with Ms. Coulter that if someone is calling al-Zarqawi, then the government should be listening. But if we know that's who they're calling, then we have probable cause for a warrant. If we don't know that's who they're calling, or that they themselves might be a terrorist, then why is the government listening to someone's private conversation at random?
Ms. Coulter also tries to counter the argument that the FISA court rarely rejects wiretap requests by saying that the court has rejected them "like never before." This may be true, that they have rejected more requests in the last four years than any years before, but even looking at the numbers she presents is telling. She states that in 2001 the court "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests." That's only 3.2% that were "modified." It doesn't tell us how many of those, if any, were rejected. For 2003-2004 she only gives us the number of requests that were modified, not how many were submitted, making that number meaningless in this argument. She quotes the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as saying the court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined." We don't know why or how these requests were modified (and rightly so; it is, after all, a secret court, and for good reasons), but we must entertain the notion that those requests did not show sufficient probable cause for what was requested.
In the final analysis, the President has created a legal tangle that, when finally straightened out, could result in the release of an unknown number of terrorists if the courts decide that the evidence leading to thier convictions was obtained illegally. In bypassing the courts he has, in the long run, actually compromised national security. He has also sown distrust of the government among it's own law abiding citizens.
The sad part is, it could have been easily avoided just by doing a little paperwork.

Pat Robertson does it again...

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of hearing Pat Robertson saying anything that goes wrong for people who don't agree with him is "God's punishment." Too many people around the world believe his statements reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans. He makes all white male Protestants look like arrogant, intolerant, and uneducated zealots. The impression he gives, whether it's true or not, is that he would like to see the Crusades and the Inquisition all over again, but that he knows he would never get away with actually saying so. Unfortunately, he is so high profile that when he makes his bigoted statements the whole world hears him. So now he's saying that a high profile leader, respected in his own country, suffered a stroke as "God's punishment" for giving the Palestinians land they have been living on for years, in an attempt to bring about peace.
Pat Robertson is an embarassment to the United States. Worse, his high profile and intolerant statements help to inflame the current international anger toward the U.S., and give the terrorists even more recruitment material. He should retire, and never make a public statement again.