Category: Uncategorized

I’ve written a couple of pieces on news stories on cops that can’t seem to shoot straight. It is my opinion that there is a misconception among the general public about the efficacy of the training regimens of police forces and the general level of marksmanship thereof. However, Officer Richard Silva of the Tucson Police Department can shoot. (Last story on the page)

Police wound man, say he fired twice at them

TUCSON – A man chasing his ex-wife with a handgun was injured this weekend when he shot at police and an officer returned fire, police said.

Tucson Police say the man, Bernie Duran, 55, was treated for a gunshot wound and booked into the Pima County Jail on one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, three counts of aggravated assault on police officers and one count of kidnapping.

At 12:40 p.m. Saturday, a man called police to report that his mother-in-law was being held against her will by her ex-husband.

When police called the home, the woman was evasive on the phone but was apparently in distress, said Sgt. Judy Altieri, a Tucson Police spokeswoman. As officers reached the home, the woman ran out with Duran chasing her, Altieri said.

Duran fired two shots at Officer Richard Silva, 36, and Silva fired three times from about 180 feet away, striking Duran once, she said.

That’s about sixty yards at a running target. That’s damned good shooting, especially when your target is shooting back!

And lest you think I pick on cops too much, you might want to revisit “THIS is Why You Train”.

Carolyn Lisle could use some pointers, I think.

Read this, and Rember Those Left Behind

From the Denver Post comes this touching story of the widow of one of the pilots murdered on 9/11. It opens:

A week after United Flight 93 crashed into a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001, Sandy Dahl had a dream about her husband, one of the pilots aboard the four ill-fated planes that day.

In the dream, she and her husband, Jason Dahl, were each piloting F-16 fighter jets. The dream was a reminder for Sandy Dahl: Jason had hoped to fly “the Porsche of aircraft” during his life and counted his 25th birthday – the cutoff age for entering flight school for F-16s at the time – as one of saddest days of his life.

Sitting in a briefing room at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora on Sunday, minutes before living out her husband’s dream to see the world from the cockpit of an F-16, Sandy Dahl recalled “the most real dream I’ve ever had.”

Go read.

“And That’s Just Our Womenfolk!”

This ought to have you laughing. And thinking. Clayton Cramer relates this Sacramento Bee story of a loser who broke into the wrong dad-gummed house in the wrong dad-gummed neighborhood!

Woman opens fire on intruder

A man is wounded as she defends her home with two handguns.

Firing nine rounds from two handguns, a 53-year-old Rancho Cordova woman fended off an intruder Thursday night after he crashed through her sliding glass door.

William Kriske, a 47-year-old parolee, was treated for a gunshot wound to the arm, then taken to jail and arrested on suspicion of burglary and resisting arrest, according to Sacramento County Sheriff’s Sgt. Lou Fatur.

“It was one of those nights. I have a few holes in my glass out front,” Carolyn Lisle said Friday.

“That’s OK, I don’t think he’ll be back,” said Lisle, who emptied one .357 revolver at the intruder before she retrieved a second one and he crashed through another window to flee.

“I was trying to miss my furniture. Priorities, right?” Lisle said.

Lisle, shaken but spirited, recounted her night that started as a quiet evening of TV with three friends and two dogs in her living room.

At about 9 p.m., a noise at the sliding door prompted a male visitor to get up to investigate, but Lisle dashed to a back room to get one of her guns.

“I knew it couldn’t be good,” Lisle said.

When the intruder shattered the glass, Lisle’s three guests fled from the house. Lisle stood her ground and opened fire.

“He was like a mosquito hitting the window. Every time he turned around, poweee,” she said.

Lisle wasn’t sure the intruder was alone so she nervously watched her back as she squeezed off rounds.

When she emptied one gun, she still hadn’t hit him. And he wasn’t gone.

“He was still in the garage, flitting around,” she said.

She went to get another gun — “I like to be prepared,” she said — and waited to see his next move. After tearing up the garage, he finally broke out through a garage window, but he veered toward Lisle’s front door. She fired again, hitting him at least once.

The bleeding intruder ran across the street and tried to hot-wire a motorcycle, but its owners, already armed to come to Lisle’s aid, chased off the would-be thief, she said.

She said one of the men yelled after the retreating burglar: “And that’s just our womenfolk.”

A California Highway Patrol officer stopped the suspect a short distance away and sheriff’s deputies arrested Kriske.

Lisle is still puzzled why someone would break into a well-lit living room with four people and two dogs.

“It was like he was out to hurt someone,” she said.

Fatur said a prowler had been reported moving through neighborhood back yards at about the time Lisle’s house was invaded.

Lisle, who said her guns are registered, will not face criminal charges, Fatur said. California law allows someone to use deadly force whenever a reasonable person believes an intruder poses a threat to kill.

Lisle is the second homeowner in the Sacramento area this year to use deadly force against an intruder.(And it’s only February!) In January, a Sacramento man shot and killed one of two armed intruders who broke into his home. He wasn’t charged.

Studies done to determine whether gun ownership deters crime have only stirred more controversy because of the way statistics are gathered and analyzed, and the way people recall their experiences, said William Vizzard, chair of the criminal justice department at California State University, Sacramento.

“We tend to see ourselves as heroic rather than idiotic,” said Vizzard, who is also a 30-year law enforcement veteran.

Vizzard, who has studied major research and written on gun issues, said two of the most prominent surveys differ dramatically in results, showing anywhere from 150,000 people a year to 2.5 million who claim success in thwarting crime with a gun.

“The answer is, no one can say for sure at the end of the day that the presence of a firearm doesn’t increase your risk of getting injured, nor does it reduce your risk,” he said.

Lisle is pretty sure where she stands: “You need protection in this day and age.”

A retired state worker who once worked as a correctional officer, she did admit that she hadn’t been to a shooting range lately: “After last night, I might go once in a while.”

I’d appreciate it if she went more than once in a while. Nine rounds and one peripheral hit? The odds of one of those misses hitting an innocent are low, but certainly not zero.

This is a surprisingly balanced piece given the source. The quote from Vizzard shows, I think, some bias though. To be really valid he should have said no one can say for sure that the presence of a firearm increases or decreases your risk of getting injured. Read it carefully for the spin he actually put on it: Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

Consider, though, what might have happened if she had not been armed. A guy willing to break in to a house with three people and two dogs? That could have been very ugly.

“Vermont Carry” in Colorado?

Publicola is all over this one, an effort to get permitless concealed-carry legislation passed in Colorado. The vote in Colorado’s House of Representatives is Tuesday. I wish them all luck.

Agenda? What Agenda? Part Deux.

I ought to make this a department like “Our Collapsing Schools.”

Via Instapundit comes this email from a 1st Leutenant in the First Armored, currently stationed in Iraq. He hasn’t got a lot of respect for the “news” media, and with good reason. Excerpt:

The Fox News crew laid out what qualified as “newsworthy: — Women taking an active leadership role in the new government, detainee/prisoner abuse cases, any WMD news, and individual soldier contributions (such as one soldier who bought school supplies and teddy bears for Iraqis out of his own pocket.) These were the stories deemed airable and they wouldn’t respond to anything outside of that. The news crew wasn’t bashful about its agenda and they made it clear that they weren’t going to respond to anything outside of those story lines unless it was something really spectacular.

Fox stood out most as a network that knew what it was going to put out before it even shot the footage. Other news organizations were more subtle about what they wanted to cover but pretty much everyone had their stories written before they showed up. To Al-Jazeera especially, the video footage was merely a formality.

(My emphasis.) Has this always existed? I think so, but I don’t think it’s previously been as institutionalized as it apparently is today.

I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing. Then write ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox a nice letter telling them you’re tired of being spoon-fed whatever story they decided a week ago you needed to hear.

Then forward a copy of the email to every journalism school in the U.S.

Oh Jebus, What Have I Done?

I’ve started another blog. Like I have time for that, but the opportunity presented itself and I just can’t avoid it.

Like I did in The Commentary, I’m now engaged in another debate on the right to arms at a shared blog we’ve decided to name The Fabulous Baker Boys, because Dave and I share the same last name, and he’s a movie buff.

I don’t expect this debate to move much faster than the last one (at least I hope not, given my current workload), but hopefully it will draw some traffic from others “on the fence” and encourage some thought.

Give it a look. We’ve got a few entries up already.

What Happened to “No Guns in Bars”???

This is actually kind of funny, but it seems that a couple of idiots decided to do a drive-by shooting of a bar in Texas, using a .22 pistol and a 1992 Ford pickup. They even made two passes.

Problem was, there were some off-duty Sheriff’s deputies inside having some cold ones.

After the first pass, the officers came out and tried to identify the truck and its license number, but were unsuccessful. So,they wandered back in and sat down, but when they heard the sound of the truck returning for the second pass, they leaped into action!

“By that time the guys had loaded up and said, ‘If he comes back again, forget about it, we’re returning fire,’ ” says Burt Springer, the lawyer representing two of the deputies.

And did they ever. Somewhere around 40 shots’ worth. Investigators reportedly ran out of the little markers used to identify spent shell casings and had to borrow paper cups. Basically, Springer says, the deputies emptied their guns.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but… all the shots missed. The truck was shot up like Swiss cheese, but neither the driver nor the trigger-happy passenger was hit. They were stopped a mile or so later — not because they were driving a truck riddled with bullet holes, but because they ran a red light.

(Deputies do have to keep up their target-shooting qualifications in Harris County, but those tests are not taken in bars.)

(Emphasis in original.)

Well, they do say that alcohol and firearms don’t mix, but it does remind me of this incident where several officers emptied their magazines at a guy attempting to commit suicide by cop. And hit him once. In the shoulder. Googled but can’t find it, and I know it’s somewhere in my archives.

I Want to Catch Up to James

James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket has instructed over 500 people in his basic firearms course. I’m not quite so formal, but I have an invitation over there on the left sidebar for anyone who wants to go shooting who has never done so before.

The invitation is still open. And I think I’ll broaden it. If you haven’t gone shooting in a long time, the invitation stands. I invite you to go shooting for a day. I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction.

All you have to do is show up.

Remember This, and Remember it Well

In relation to the story below of Cook County prosecutors dropping charges against Hale DeMar for failure to renew his Firearms Owner ID card, let me quote the prosecutor:

Declaring “we choose to prosecute the real criminal,” a Cook County prosecutor declined Friday to press state firearms charges against a Wilmette man who shot an intruder in his home.

Hale DeMar “purchased a gun legally. It was registered. What he failed to do was keep current” his state firearm owner’s identification card, said Assistant State’s Atty. Steve Goebel.

Prosecuting DeMar, 54, of the 0-99 block of Linden Avenue for a “memory lapse” would violate the spirit of the law, he said.

“We choose to prosecute the real criminal here, the person who broke into this house not once but twice,” Goebel said.

The sweet voice of reason, right? While failure to keep an FOID current is a misdemeanor, it carries a possible fine of up to $2,500. (Nice how the report targets where Mr. DeMar lives for any criminal wishing to invade his home now that his handguns have been confiscated by the State. Hopefully the next one will have a close encounter with Mr. DeMar’s 12 gauge.)

As noted below, the town of Wilmette is going ahead with prosecution of DeMar for violation of the handgun ban. This is a civil matter with a maximum fine of $750.

State Representative John Bradley (a Democrat, no less!) as noted below has introduced legislation to protect people like DeMar from prosecutions such as Wilmette is now pursuing. According to this story:

District State Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), who called DeMar a “law-abiding citizen,” has introduced HB 4075, which would override local handgun bans when the handguns are used in self-defense.

Now, remember, we’re talking about a civil violation that has, at most, a $750 penalty. Here’s what Chris Boyster, spokesman for the gun ban control “safety” organization Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence had to say about that:

“He was not a law-abiding citizen,” Boyster said. “He had a handgun, there was a handgun ban, he broke the law.”

Remember that. Burn it into your brain. As far as the gun ban control “safety” organizations are concerned, if you violate any law, you should be disqualified from gun ownership.

Carry that to its logical conclusion: Get a ticket for speeding? You’re not a “law-abiding citizen.” Do some remodeling on your house without a permit? You’re not a “law-abiding citizen.” Violate any of the almost innumerable, often contradictory Federal, State, county, or municipal laws, ordinances, regulations, or edicts and you’re no longer a law-abiding citizen. And you have, in their eyes, no right to arms.

So the next time you hear a spokesweasel for a gun ban control “safety” organization say that they support the right of “law-abiding” Americans to possess firearms, remember how they define LAW-ABIDING.

Via Kim I find out that Cook County, Illinois will not prosecute Hale DeMar, the resident of Wilmett who shot the man who burglarized his home twice. (Originally covered here.) The story says:

Cook County prosecutors on Friday dropped a charge of failing to renew his Firearm Owners Identification card against Hale DeMar of Wilmette, but the Village of Wilmette is going forward with its prosecution of DeMar for violating a local handgun ban.

The bastards. In good news, however:

The village’s prosecution has outraged many people, including Sen. Edward Petka (R-Plainfield), deputy minority leader of the Illinois Senate. Petka has introduced Senate Bill 2165, which provides an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the charged individual used the firearm in self-defense or to defend another person.

House Bill 4075, introduced by Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion) in the General Assembly’s other chamber, has similar provisions.

Petka said he objects to Wilmette’s handgun ban and prosecution of DeMar because he believes self-defense is both “an inalienable right” and a “law of nature.”

“People have a right to protect themselves and their families. A person has a right and duty — a duty — to protect himself and his family in his home,” Petka said. “The bill restates the obvious, but apparently it’s not so obvious to people in Wilmette and some other towns who don’t understand there is a direct relationship between the ability to protect yourself and freedom. That’s the essence of it.”

Petka’s bill would apply in all communities, including Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley is a fervent opponent of gun rights and where a handgun ban also exists.

Finally! Some freaking backlash!

Is it possible that the pendulum is finally starting to start its swing back? Read this!

Many members of Wilmette American Legion Post 46 agree with Petka. They have invited him and other speakers to address issues of self-defense, state gun laws and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

—

The Legion Post decided to invite the speakers to highlight Petka’s legislation and shed more light on the factors involved in Wilmette’s prosecution of DeMar, said Mike Luxem, senior vice commander of the 1st Division of the Sons of the American Legion.

“The Legion supports the Constitution,” Luxem said. “Our goal is to educate Wilmette residents who want to understand their gun rights, the Second Amendment, and state gun laws.”

Luxem said the Legion also hopes to explain guns themselves. He said Wilmette residents need to understand that if DeMar had used a shotgun or rifle he probably would have killed Billings, because those firearms are much more lethal at close range. Yet the village allows residents to own shotguns and rifles.

Education, education, EDUCATION!

People fear what they do not understand.

And in Illinois, no less! No wonder it’s been so cold up North. Hell is apparently freezing over.