Patterico's Pontifications

12/16/2010

Client Number Nine: Doesn’t That Florida School Board Shooting Mean That We Should Have More Gun Control?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:52 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Well, I predicted it yesterday, didn’t I?  Here’s the video.

Of course, the answer is no.  The fact is this guy was not supposed to have a gun in the first place.  He was a convicted felon.  The synopsis of that previous crime was this:

In October 1999, Duke threatened to kill a Florida woman, and when she attempted to flee, he used a handgun to “shoot out the victim’s rear tire of the vehicle that she was operating.”

Duke, wearing a bulletproof vest, told the woman he had “been watching her for the past six months and was planning to kill her, several other people, then himself,” according to probation officers.

And like in most states, Florida tells felons they may not possess firearms.  But still, he had one.  Because that is what criminals do: they don’t obey the law.  Indeed, the notion that a man would decide to commit a murder-suicide would then be deterred by a law telling him he isn’t supposed to own a gun is self-evidently silly.

At the same time, if Ginger Littleton had had a gun she could have ended the entire thing right then and there.  And it’s worth noting that it was very likely unlawful for Ms. Littleton to have carried a gun.  This statute, for instance, makes it a crime to possess a gun at a school or school-sponsored function, which might or might not include a school board meeting.

Further, on the video when security first enters the room and then retreats (apparently wanting to de-escalate the situation), Duke is heard saying that he doesn’t think the security guard had a gun.  That belief was probably mistaken because it appears that this was the same guard who ultimately shoots him, but it leads one to wonder if Duke felt empowered by the (possibly false) belief that there was no one there to oppose him.

Incidentally, I linked to it above, but the indispensible The Smoking Gun, has a lot more background on Clay Duke.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

97 Responses to “Client Number Nine: Doesn’t That Florida School Board Shooting Mean That We Should Have More Gun Control?”

  1. No, guns shouldn’t be outlawed. But why is it apparently so damn easy for mentally ill people to get them? And how do we solve that problem?

    JEA (90eb9c)

  2. My wife works for the Orange County (Florida) School Board, and they had a meeting the same night as the shooting.

    Their security guards are unarmed. I feel so safe!

    Pious Agnostic (291f9a)

  3. Meanwhile, the law – abiding citizens of IL can now purchase guns legally. Just one little, teensy – weensy problem, though – they’ll have to pay upwards of $600 for all of the classes they must take before approval, and travel many miles from their homes in order to get to the gun range. But hey, anyone can still get a gun if they really, really want one, right? They’d still do better to buy one on the street at this rate.

    Dmac (498ece)

  4. dmac

    we’ll see how long those laws last.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. Dmac, that’s a shame. This is a civil right, and a lot of people who need a gun do not have the time and money to jump through these hoops. They simply want a community more like my community in Texas.

    Aaron, I can’t think of a story that shows the need for concealed gun carrying better than this one. Perhaps that Luby’s shooting in Kileen?

    Gun free zones are provocative. Having gun rights isn’t just about fighting back (in this case, Ginger should have been able to), but also about preventing a coward from threatening law abiders when he breaks the law.

    This man was utterly cowardly. You can see how he waves his gun at the innocent people, whines, and then kills himself.

    He would not have shown up at all, had guns been permitted in the room.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. dustin

    and it also demonstrates to some degree the positive need for good people to carry.

    We cannot ever control things so much as to make all gun violence impossible. And even if we could, no one would want to live under those conditions.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  7. That’s well said, Aaron. I would much rather have the ability to protect my family, than live in a police state that attempts to do it for me.

    These would-be rulers like Spitzer keep acting like they don’t trust the common folk with power. Even if it’s the mere power to protect their own family.

    But we’re supposed to trust obviously dishonest people like Spitzer with power over millions of people.

    At the end of the day, that’s all it’s about. Freedom is another word for reduced government power.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  8. Wow, who could have expected a convicted felon to break a gun law? I’m shocked. Really.

    Socratease (656f72)

  9. At the same time, if Ginger Littleton had had a gun she could have ended the entire thing right then and there.

    Unless she missed and hit another school board member.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Innocent bystanders = “collateral damage”.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  10. Kmart is not quite as dishonest as Yelverton, but is equally as mendoucheous.

    JD (d8bee7)

  11. Wow, who could have expected a convicted felon to break a gun law? I’m shocked. Really.

    Another interesting point is that the convicted felon, the guy who only brought a gun into this situation because it was a gun free zone, was indiscriminately firing. He had a lot less training than you can expect many law abiding gun carriers to have, and he obviously had much less concern for anyone’s safety.

    Kman’s been bashing Ginger a lot, and I realize he just does it for attention, but she was utterly selfless and can be trusted to be responsible with how she fires a gun. If she could have been armed, no bullets would have been fired at all, in all likelihood. But I think it’s safe to trust her shooting over the shooting of the felons… the people democrats would leave as the only armed people in the room aside from the government.

    His lie that we dismiss harm to others as collateral damage is normal Kman style laziness. Remember: we’re trying to ignore him as best as we can, but I think it’s helpful to remind folks.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. Badge licking authoritarians. Spit.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  13. I’d trust Ginger with power before I trusted any police officer I didn’t personally know to be extremely impressive (and I do know 2 officers who are that impressive).

    Ginger has proven her concern for those around her.

    And remember Ginger, because she is exactly the sort of person the democrat party wants to keep guns away from. They tell you they do it for your safety, but their own argument fails as soon as they put that gun in the hands of the government.

    If we can trust police officers with guns (and we can), then we can trust Ginger with a guns, too.

    We can’t live in a perfect society, so we need the human right to defend ourselves.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. Kman’s been bashing Ginger a lot, and I realize he just does it for attention, but she was utterly selfless and can be trusted to be responsible with how she fires a gun.

    I haven’t been bashing Ginger at all, much less “a lot”. I don’t know Ginger, and unlike you, I don’t pretend to know her. And that lack of knowledge extends to the supposed trustworthiness of her imagined shooting skills.

    My only point was that WE DON’T KNOW how Ginger would handle a gun, and everybody here is speculating. Just because I don’t join in with the fantasy, does not make me a “liar”. Just a realist.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  15. Kman

    Why do you bother commenting? You obviously didn’t even watch the video. Otherwise you would have known it is facially ridiculous to claim she was likely to miss at point blank range. If there was any danger to the rest of the school board, it was because the bullet might pass through the gunman and hit someone else. Ray Charles wouldn’t have missed that shot.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  16. It’s like he didn’t even read the description, Aaron. She made physical contact with him. She was, therefore, zero point zero feet away from her target (which is unsafe, I realize).

    At any rate, I trust Ginger as much as I trust anyone else who would have a gun, to be concerned for the safety of other people. I think anyone who challenges that is crazy.

    If the government gets to have guns, why not Ginger, too? I noticed the Swat team rushing in, when it was too late to do any good, pointing their ARs at innocent people and screaming ‘please get down’. I accept that this is the best they can do, since they don’t know the situation yet, but I prefer just letting people protect themselves, first.

    If we were to pretend there was a rule that we do not allow people to have guns if there is a risk of accidents, then no police, no IRS, no ATF.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. ^sure, kfart’s just asking questions, dontcha know. No doubt he’d be the one pointing fingers at everyone else in that room, but then again he’d be pointing those fingers while attempting to claw his way to China through the floor.

    we’ll see how long those laws last.

    Given the city’s leaders ridiculously dogmatic approach to this issue, I suspect they’ll drag it out ’till the bitter end, as usual. The penultimate ironic thing about this debate is that the citizen in the center of this successful challenge to gun control laws was a senior citizen from Chicago, who happens to live in one of the worst crime neighborhoods in the city (Englewood). Oh yeah, he also just happens to be BLACK as well. But of course, that doesn’t get reported much in the MFM these days.

    Dmac (498ece)

  18. Otherwise you would have known it is facially ridiculous to claim she was likely to miss at point blank range.

    Again, you (and everyone) is engaging in speculation. You’re assuming that, with a gun, she would sneak up to point blank range… but of course, the advantage of having a gun (over a purse) is that you don’t need to take that risk. She may have stayed back 10 feet or so and fired from there. And missed. (After all, the gunmen himself missed at close range, right?)

    Or she may have left the safety on.

    Or a dozen other possibilities.

    It’s all speculation.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  19. “…(a)pass through…”
    Responsible CCW holders use defensive ammo such as Jacketed Hollow Point(JHP) – not Full Metal Jacket(FMJ) – to minimize the danger of a through-and-through.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  20. Meh. You’ll say anything for attention, Kman. There’s been too much acrimony lately, and I’m not interested in bothering with someone who boasts they don’t read comments and posts they are bashing.

    I’m not going to try to pile on. I’d rather ignore you as much as I can manage.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  21. Otherwise you would have known it is facially ridiculous to claim she was likely to miss at point blank range.

    kfart just knows things – he’s a very successful ambulance – chaser.

    Dmac (498ece)

  22. Also appears terrified of a woman capable of attempting to defend herself, even if it’s just a purse. Run, kfart, ruuuuuuuuuunnnnnnn!

    Dmac (498ece)

  23. AD, great point.

    I also suggest .45 for the same reason.

    When I used to live in an apartment, a helpful neighbor talked to me about the safety of using Black Talon style rounds that dig into walls instead of penetrate them.

    Now that’s community organizing, Texas style.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Naturally it never occurs to libs that the same illicit entrepreneurs
    that provide one with the cherished vices of life such as whores, dope, non-taxable gambling will quite happily provide one with illicit firearms.
    Just bring enough cash and they will cheerfully provide you with all of the action, broads, dope and guns to your heart’s desire.

    Somehow when it comes to guns they expect to find a new and improved class of criminal and crazy, the law abiding kind.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  25. Kman, the meme of how ordinary citizens using firearms for self-defense will shoot themselves, others or lose their guns to criminals (“It will be the Wild West!”) is a common one from gun control advocates. And like all the claims of gun control advocates, its a brazen lie when you look at actual incidents. Thanks for reminding us of your lack of credibility.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. “Only gun Client Number 9 should worry about controling is in his pants.”

    Sock Puppet Advance.

    Hilda Spitzer (15521c)

  27. I’ve never met Ginger, either. But all I need to know is in the video, that she is the kind of person who would put herself in harms way for someone else’s sake, and that characteristic has been tested in the only way that counts.

    As for her shooting ability, if you’d ever compared a typical police qualifying shoot to a typical public range, you wouldn’t even bring that subject up.

    Socratease (5c1dd6)

  28. Sock Puppet Advance……

    Shooting school board members is a sick fantasy of mine.

    Cathie Black (15521c)

  29. Sock Puppet Advance……

    Go figure, my MD has very good aim.

    Michael Jackson (15521c)

  30. Sock Puppet Advance……

    Where is Hinkley when you need him

    Ronald Reagan (15521c)

  31. Our esteemed guest host wrote:

    Because that is what criminals do: they don’t obey the law.

    Why that’s such a difficult concept for our friends on the left to understand is beyond me.

    Well, no, that’s a lie: I understand it completely. By blaming the gun, they manage to shy away from blaming the actual criminal, the guy who led a deprived childhood, the guy who was a victim of our society, and heaven forfend! that he might be a member of a certified victim group.

    What really separates conservatives from liberals isn’t ideology; it’s just plain common sense.

    The open-eyed Dana (3e4784)

  32. since she was able to walk right up behind him, she could have quietly and carefully placed the muzzle at an upward angle right about the base of his skull and pulled the trigger.

    that way the round would have buried itself safely in the ceiling after evacuating his cranial cavity.

    this would also have the salubrious effect of instantly stopping all nervous activity so the perp couldn’t get off a dying shot.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  33. and always remember folks:

    When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  34. I like the way Red thinks.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  35. Unless she missed and hit another school board member

    The fact that she got close enough to hit him with her purse shows that she would have been at point-blank range with a firearm. I doubt very much she would have hit anything but what she was aiming at.

    But, since you brought up the subject of “collateral damage”, do you have any idea what the stats are on accidental shootings in the heat of action by a lawful CCW permit holder?

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  36. Some chump, gun control advocates prefer to make up claims than actually deal in real statistics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  37. The fact that she got close enough to hit him with her purse shows that she would have been at point-blank range with a firearm.

    But only if she went close enough to him with the firearm. With the purse, she really didn’t have much of a choice but to get close. With a firearm, she could have opted to shoot from behind the wall.

    Again, it’s all speculation. You all watch too many movies.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  38. To answer JEA’s question from #1:

    Firearms, in their current configuration, are a 100-150 year old technology. They are a simple tool with a point-and-click interface. With only the most minimal care, a firearm can remain in usable condition for a hundred years and even if ignored its inherent reliability will simply go down from 99.99% to perhaps 95%.

    Millions of firearms have been created around the world and remain in circulation. Because the technology is so old and so well understood, perfectly adequate firearms can be created with hand tools from metal scrap – and they are, around the world. These firearms also remain in circulation.

    The chemicals involved in making ammunition and the processes of its making are also very simple and very well understood for a hundred years.

    We are unable to keep drugs from crossing our borders and we are unable to keep people from making drugs within our borders through chemical processes no less difficult than that of making ammunition. As long as these things remain the case, people can easily make guns and ammunition within our borders and even easier make them outside our borders and smuggle them inside for sale.

    As long as that remains the case, we can’t expect to keep mentally ill people from getting firearms. We can try to make it harder, and we already do that. But the facts on the ground demonstrate just why it is so damn easy.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  39. You’re right, laugha.

    If you can go to the bathroom and locate a pipe and a nail, and maybe a little more random junk, your ability to have a firearm is only limited by your knowledge.

    But I don’t like justifying my human right on the futility of banning it. I want the ability to protect my family. I like a society whose government has no hope of being like Maoist China.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. Again, it’s all speculation. You all watch too many movies

    I know enough that the closer I can get to a target,the better my chance of hitting it.

    However, you ignored my second point: just how often does a lawful CCW permit holder shoot an innocent bystander when aiming for someone else?

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  41. And the other thing you are apparently missing from the story, Kman, is this.

    The man WAS GOING TO SHOOT. Either she stopped him, or no one would.

    Yes, he missed, thank God.

    But I love the argument. Don’t stop the man with the gun who wants to carry out a murder suicide. you might hurt someone!

    The only reason why it turned out okay, was because he apparently was a Star Wars Stormtrooper in a previous life (in other words, he is a very bad shot).

    Nothing terrifying you more, it seems, than the idea that a private citizen can do anything for him or herself. I suppose because it might make them depend less on government.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. I know enough that the closer I can get to a target,the better my chance of hitting it.

    And presumably you also know that the closer you are to the target, the more likely you’ll be spotted and become a target yourself. Presumably, Ginger would know these common sense things as well.

    My point is we just can’t assume she would sneak up to point blank range if she had a firearm. Sure that would be BEST if she did, but again, WOULD she? Any answer is pure guesswork.

    However, you ignored my second point: just how often does a lawful CCW permit holder shoot an innocent bystander when aiming for someone else?

    Not very often I suspect, as that situation doesn’t arise a whole lot (at least, in a non-combat setting)

    Kman (d30fc3)

  43. AW:

    The man WAS GOING TO SHOOT. Either she stopped him, or no one would.

    Sure, an easy thing to say NOW in 20/20 hindsight.

    But at the time…. who could say?

    But I love the argument. Don’t stop the man with the gun who wants to carry out a murder suicide. you might hurt someone!

    Um….yeah…. I don’t think you understand the time-space continuum very well. You incorporate things that we know now — i.e., after-the-fact — and presume that that all the participants were fully aware of them then, and would have acted with the benefit of having such knowledge.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  44. Kman

    Well, in case you forgot or were just asleep in criminal law class, you don’t have to KNOW he will kill them. you just have to reasonably believe it. because no one can perfectly see the future and aren’t required to.

    But i find it incredibly sexist of you to assert that this woman, with a gun, is a greater danger to others, than Mr. Duke.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. But we are supposed to credit your speculation that a private citizen with a gun might have shot someone as a reason to oppose an armed citizenry.

    You don’t really think about your comments much, do you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  46. Kman, if Ginger got close enough to hit the guy with her purse undetected, what makes you think she would not have gotten just as close with a gun?

    Further, do you not realize it’s possible to use a gun to subdue a suspect without ever firing it?

    Your critical imagination is woefully lacking.

    The fact is, accidental shootings by CCW permit holders is exceedingly rare (as a percentage of incidents, rarer than accidental shootings by police). So, your conjecture that she would have hit an innocent bystander is much less likely to happen than you would have us believe.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  47. The fact is, accidental shootings by CCW permit holders is exceedingly rare (as a percentage of incidents, rarer than accidental shootings by police).

    I would have guessed, but I didn’t know that.

    That is an extremely well thought out comparison, too.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. Dustin, all of the claims by gun control advocates regarding the “reasons” to oppose civilian carry turn out to not merely be false, but to be completely the opposite of reality. We’ve a lot of experience now with the large number of states that are now “shall issue” on concealed carry permits ( or increasingly entirely permitless ).

    The gun control organizations nonetheless continue to make these false claims, intentionally ignoring the real experience we have.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. AW:

    Well, in case you forgot or were just asleep in criminal law class, you don’t have to KNOW he will kill them.

    We’re not talking about Ginger’s potential liability *rolls eyes*. We’re talking about what Ginger would have done — you know, human nature, and how you all speculate what she would have done if she had a firearm.

    But i find it incredibly sexist of you to assert that this woman, with a gun, is a greater danger to others, than Mr. Duke.

    Please link to where I said, or even suggested, that Duke wasn’t a danger and/or compared the danger of “this woman” (as you call her) to that of Duke.

    You really do live in a non-reality-based world.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  50. But we are supposed to credit your speculation that a private citizen with a gun might have shot someone as a reason to oppose an armed citizenry.

    No, which is why I said it is ALL speculation.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  51. Here’s a thread that discusses the topic of accidental shootings by CCW holders.

    The odds of a CCW holder accidently killing an innocent bystander are about 1:26000. By contrast, a CCW holder is successful at stopping an attack over 80% of the time.

    So, contrary to KMan’s assertion, it’s far more likely that Ginger would have subued the guy than hit someone by mistake.

    Case closed.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  52. Annie: The sun will come out, tomorrow!

    Simpson’s Comic Book Dweeb: FALSE! Speculation!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  53. At the same time, if Ginger Littleton had had a gun she could have ended the entire thing right then and there.

    Unless she missed and hit another school board member.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Innocent bystanders = “collateral damage”.

    So Kman, you are saying that we should ignore your comment, the one I quoted above, because it was “speculation”.

    Then why did you type it? Why did you waste my time reading it?

    I can only speculate it was because you wanted to poison the discussion with a false claim echoed from the usual Brady Campaign/VPC propaganda.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. So Kman, you are saying that we should ignore your comment, the one I quoted above, because it was “speculation”.

    SPQR, I’m never said she was definitely going to hit innocent bystanders. I only put it out there as a possibility to show that you were all speculating by making blanket statements.

    Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? Man, the echo chamber gets really unruly if someone goes off-script.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  55. Because it is a specific piece of propaganda from Brady Campaign/VPC, Kman. That’s why. A false one. Don’t pretend to be all innocent here, we know better.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?

    Ummm… it wasn’t difficult for SPQR to understand. He correctly noted that your own comments fail your speculation objection, and in fact, the actual evidence we do have suggests your scenario is radically unrealistic.

    He never said that you said something definite… he said you speculated, which you did. This isn’t an echo chamber… you’re just losing the argument, fair and square.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. the actual evidence we do have suggests your scenario is radically unrealistic.

    Well, I don’t accept SPQR’s stat. For one thing, it’s based on ONE study which covers data that is over 20 years old at best.

    Secondly, this wasn’t a robbery in an alley, where there aren’t a lot of “innocent bystanders” to begin with. So you’re comparing this incident to thousands of incidents which aren’t even the SAME KIND OF CRIME.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  58. Comment by The open-eyed Dana — 12/16/2010 @ 10:31 am

    Stephen Sondheim nailed this over fifty-years ago in the lyrics for “Officer Krupke” in “West Side Story”…

    “…we’re depraved because we’re deprived…”

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  59. I luv it when the trollz go ALL CAPS on your wingnut asses.

    JD (6e25b4)

  60. I get endless amusement from fuzzy-headed liberal thinkers and bed wetters such as Kman, Willie the Wanker, and Prostitution Purchaser Spritzer, who claim they have no desire to live in a police state and decry fascists yet turn around and demand gun control after every shooting incident. Adding insult to injury, they then support more lenient sentences and early release for convicted criminals. Somehow for them it all makes sense.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  61. Kman, yes we are speculating that Ginger would have subdued Duke were she in possession of a gun.

    You are speculating that she would have shot someone else by mistake.

    We are trying to show you that your scenario is MUCH less likely to happen than ours, but you gainsay all our evidence and offer no facts.

    I’m guessing you’ve never handled a gun, nor do you know anyone who has a CCW permit. If you did, you’d realize just how unlikely your scenario is.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  62. Comment by luagha — 12/16/2010 @ 10:48 am
    In 2011, we will celebrate the Centenary of the Government Model, 1911, Pistol, designed by John Moses Browning – one of his most enduring designs (other than the M2-.50BMG).

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  63. Kman, so actual data taking the claim away from speculation is actually SQUIRREL!

    You waste everyone’s time trying to flog long-discredited gun control organization propaganda in such transparent ways.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. Somehow for them it all makes sense.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    I think the ‘somehow’ is that they are powerful. Spitzer can have a gun… he is elite. He can have security too. Criminals won’t bug him, unless he pays them too, of course, because he is insulated from the consequences of his decisions.

    This is why Rudy was so beloved as a mayor (even though he is also a damn gun grabber). His decisions helped the part of his city that wasn’t so insulated and elite, too.

    A lot of these limo liberals don’t feel the impact of harmful taxation (like Kerry), or gun control (like any politician), or forced menus (like Michelle Obama).

    That’s the somehow. It all works because they are only trying to agitate for maximum power, which they can then exploit for wealth and political security. The actual consequences are absurd, when you put them together. A gun free zone with easy parole is borderline silly, if you attempt to find honest logic in it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. I have to drum up the courage to leave the house on a daily basis. I bring a picture of my mommy’s apron to calm my irrational fear of people who may be carrying a gun. [Eek!!]
    I asked Santa for a Kevlar skirt and a backpack with a deployable fainting airbag this Christmas, so I can walk to the neighborhood market.

    Kfap (e7577d)

  66. redc1c4 noted that:

    When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    Not that it matters: as Warren v District of Columbia noted, the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  67. Sadly, the truth that everyone here is ignoring is that, if Ginger had possessed a gun and used it, shooting Duke from behind, she would now be looking for a good lawyer. The papers would be excoriating her as a vicious vigilante. Experts would be discussing the likelihood that Duke could have been talked down from his violent mood. And a jury of her peers, consisting of a lot of people who are afraid of guns and think that anyone who would shoot one must be a barbarian, would put her away for the good of society.

    After all, we don’t want things to become like the Wild West, do we?

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  68. I sorely, sorely wish that places banning guns would be exposed to greater liability for the forseeable consequences. In particular, governments that already have sovereign immunity.

    These people should be able to collect damages from the school district for being forced into a situation where they couldn’t protect themselves.

    In particular since, as Dana shows us, the police are virtually no protection at all.

    Gun free zones are very dangerous. Places that use them should only do so for extremely good reason, and should also guarantee the safety of those suffering from their loss of human rights, with excellent security that IS obligated to protect.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  69. “Or she may have left the safety on.”

    Definitely a possibility. For that reason I recommend she carry a small .38 or .357 revolver instead..

    carol (5a5d33)

  70. I hate to be the type to argue about guns, but I disagree with carol.

    A revolver is less comfortable to shoot. Anyone, and in particular people with less strength (male or female) are less likely to practice sufficiently with a revolver. Especially a small revolver, which is even more painful to fire.

    A glock (or a weapon like it) does not have a safety / fire selector. Such a weapon is generally safer than a revolver, having a special trigger that is harder to accidentally pull.

    But my personal preference is for a double action pistol with a safety selector. I think the solution to ‘might forget to turn the safety off’ is to practice. When you practice, go from the condition in which you’d carry the pistol, with it safe, to firing it. I don’t mean wildly swinging your arm and trying to be a supercop, but just normal going through the motions, over and over again.

    I hope I don’t come across as some kind of macho guy. My wife is a better shot than I’ll ever be. But it bugs the heck out of me when people suggest to her that she get a very light weight revolver, and leave it in a purse.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. this is coming from someone who has tried to fire 200 rounds through a tiny .38, and then many hundreds through my wife’s .45 Glock, which is the size of a 2×4 and not a good weapon to conceal, but still… it’s such a pleasure to shoot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. If Ginger had a gun in her purse, the purse would have weighed a lot more, and probably would have hurt Duke when she hit him in the head with it.

    Just sayin’

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  73. probably would have hurt Duke when she hit him in the head with it.

    hahahaha!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  74. @Dana: that was kinda the point…. you have a problem, they show up to write the report and to monday morning quarterback.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  75. @ Dustin: if you live here in SoCal, we can meet at the range… our wives can have a 45 shoot off Glock vs S&W. 8)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  76. the two keys to firearms safety are both simple

    1. practice, practice practice, and then, once you’re good, keep practicing.

    2. a gun is always loaded. treat it as such.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  77. red, I really wish I could accept the invite, but I’m in Texas. Next time I’m in California, I’ll try to take you up on it.

    My wife’s concealed carry pistol is a USP Compact, which is just a good little rugged pistol. Not quite as accurate as a full size, but it’s pretty darn accurate, and it’s a good size.

    Your two tips solve 99% of firearms related issues.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. “Secondly, this wasn’t a robbery in an alley, where there aren’t a lot of “innocent bystanders” to begin with.”

    In the video I count 1..2..3— EVERYBODY without a gun was an “innocent bystander”! This is a concept Kman could never conceive.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  79. An old story from Texas:

    Seems a guy cruises through a stop sign, or whatever, and gets pulled over by a local policeman. Guy hands the policeman his driver’s license, insurance verification, plus his concealed carry permit.

    “Okay, Mr. Smith,” the cop says, “I see your CCW permit. Are you carrying today?”

    “Yes, I am.”

    “Well then, better tell me what you got.”

    Smith says, “Well, I got a .357 revolver in my inside coat pocket. There’s a 9mm semi-auto in the glove box. And, I’ve got a .22 magnum derringer in my right boot.”

    “Okay,” the cop says. “Anything else?”

    “Yeah, back in the trunk, there’s an AR15 and a shotgun. That’s about it.”

    “Mr. Smith, are you on your way to or from a gun range…?”

    “Nope.”

    “Well then, what are you afraid of…?”

    “Not a damn thing…”

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  80. Dustin,

    Do you know of any wrongful shooting cases by conceal carrys? I haven’t heard of any

    EricPWJohnson (25498d)

  81. “Well then, what are you afraid of…?”

    “Being out of ammo for her guns!”

    htom (412a17)

  82. To those who only trust the government to have guns: Ginger Littleton *is* a government official. She’s an elected member of the Bay County School Board.

    Joshua (f95449)

  83. Do you know of any wrongful shooting cases by conceal carrys? I haven’t heard of any

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    Not that I can recall. I’m sure there’s one or two exceptions out there, but I also believe that CCW holders are less prone to these accidents than officers are (no disrespect to the police intended).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. Another old one:

    You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you…

    You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

    What do you do? THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:

    Liberal’s Answer:
    Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
    What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
    Does the man look poor or oppressed?
    Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
    Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
    Could we run away?
    What does my wife think?
    What about the kids?
    Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
    What does the law say about this situation?
    Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
    Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
    Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
    Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
    If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
    Should I call 9-1-1?
    Why is this street so deserted?
    We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
    Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
    I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
    This is all so confusing!
    ****************************************
    Republican’s Answer:
    BANG!
    *****************************************
    Southerner’s Answer:
    BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
    Click….. (Sounds of reloading)
    BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
    Click
    Daughter: ‘Nice grouping, Daddy!’ Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!
    Son: ‘Can I shoot the next one?!’
    Wife: ‘You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  85. daleyrocks, 12 rounds before reloading? You meant a Para Ordnance, not a Kimber.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. How do these people think gun control will work? That we will rid the country of guns? It’s worked so well with crack.

    Kevin M (298030)

  87. “You meant a Para Ordnance, not a Kimber.”

    SPQR – I didn’t write the thing. Somebody sent it to me a while back. I will chastise them.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  88. It’s worked so well with crack.

    Why are people unusually witty today?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  89. daleyrocks, severely I hope.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. SPQR – I’m glad you focused on the important part.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  91. OCD is my middle name … well, just the “D” but you know what I mean …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. I believe that this deranged man intentionally spared everyone and was committing suicide.

    There is a long version of the video available. You really need to watch that video (not the short one with just the shooting) to get the context of what was going on.

    First, a woman FOOLISHLY tried to disarm Duke by slapping his gun hand with her purse. She hardly budged his arm, spun around, and she fell down to the ground. Duke points the gun at her head – yet does not fire. Why not? This woman had assaulted him, failed, and was at his mercy. If he was so out of control and fired up to kill – he would have shot her at that point. Yet, he didn’t.

    Second, he pointed the gun a few feet away at the head honcho of the meeting (forget his name). Don’t tell Glenn Beck, but it’s obvious by the weapon he was carrying, and that he had shot out a woman’s tire (years earlier), that he had at least some experience with handguns. Yet, just a few feet away, with his pistol raised and pointed, he missed? No way. He wasn’t aiming for the guy. I believe he hit where he was aiming.

    Third, after the first shots, he then fires a shot with the gun pointing at the ground! Intentionally! So nonchalently, as if he was pretending, or merely going through the motions.

    He had many opportunities to kill, hurt, hold hostages, get media attention/standoff, seize control, etc. – as so many do in that type of situation. Why didn’t he? He could have been all over the media, made his “V” stand, live standoff, etc. Yet, he chose to do none of those things.

    This was a guy who wanted to die. He was fedup, wanted to say what he had to say, and then be killed. The commissioner (or whatever he is) even said as much (that he wanted to be shot/die)! He could tell that Duke wanted to die.

    Obviously, he was mentally ill / in bad mental shape. Not making excuses for him. But… the notion that everyone there simply got “lucky” or it was “God’s will” is ridiculous. In the final analysis, this very disturbed and dangerous man did NOT want to kill. At least give the deceased that much. Had he wanted to kill one or more people, he could have easily done so.

    Mike Bell (ad47e5)

  93. Pardon me, but it’s about time someone started shooting school board members…

    “Ha-Ha, only serious”.

    :-S

    Shall I describe for you the instance where the local school board sent a teacher to China to “study the teaching of Chinese to schoolkids”? Cost to the taxpayers, about $10k.

    I fine idea — Except for the fact that no local school TEACHES Chineseor has any plans to.

    And when called out on it…?

    One member of the school board STILL attempted to defend it.

    .

    .

    I dunno, if you can’t put the fear of the voter into them, what is left?

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  94. .

    IF ATTACKED…

    .

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  95. Look, here in New Zealand we’ve had guns under stricter and stricter control for about 100 years. We’re tow islands with a small number of ports and airports.

    Yet, a crook (Graeme Burton) got out of jail and started a rampage. He managed in a very short space of time to get his hands on a large cache of illegal weapons. Who knows how.

    Even the legal ones are used illegally – a teacher was shot a few weeks back by an idiot who assumes she was a possum (they’re noxious pests here).

    Then there the fact that those who can’t get hold of guns have found numerous close alternatives – high powered air rifles, crossbows etc…

    Sorry, but if we can’t rid our country of illegal weapons how the heck can the USA?

    scrubone (7f0940)

  96. The security guard on duty might have been the only security guard on the staff that had a gun because he is former policeman. I must remind all that in an incident in colorado the security guard who saved the day was a woman who also was a former cop.

    dunce (b89258)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1294 secs.