Concealed Carry Stops Shooting Spree

Please check out this story from the Reno Gazette-Journal
Winnemucca, NV

On Sunday May 25, 2008 at approximately 2:30 a.m. the Winnemucca Police Department was dispatched to the Players Bar and Grill located at 1062 South Grass Valley Road on the report of numerous shots fired and multiple gunshot victims.

The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located.

Those two gunshot victims had non-life threatening injuries and were later release from the hospital.

The initial investigation indicated that there had been two separate shooters during the incident. One of the alleged shooters, Ernesto Fuentes Villagomez, age 30 of Winnemucca, was among the three men who were dead on arrival. The other was a 48 year old Reno man who was initially taken into custody at the scene as a person of interest.

The subsequent investigation lead detectives to believe that Villagomez entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.

The shooting was determined to be a justifiable homicide and the unnamed Reno man was released with no charges filed against him.

Good for him. I hope the man gets a medal.

GB Internet Gun Dealer Partners With Students

From WFRV.com:

Eric Thompson, president of the Web-based firearms and sporting goods dealer that sold firearms and accessories to the shooters in the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University massacres,

Cheap shot. Right up at the top, first sentence, of the story. Liberal bais? (EMB)

Next month Thompson and TGSCOM, Inc,... will partner with the 22,000 member Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) organization by supplying holsters for the organization’s second annual empty-holster protest.

snip

SCCC, founded in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, and Thompson share the same mission – to allow licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms on campuses for self-defense.

In April, thousands of students from across the country will wear empty holsters to their classes in protest of laws and school policies that do not allow licensed and trained individuals to carry a firearm in supposed “gun-free zones” on campuses. The protest will be staged the week after the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

I doubt the uppity Libs that run these college campi are listening to THE PEOPLE THAT PAY THEIR SALARIES. But clearly many students do not feel that these colleges are doing enough to make things safe for them on campus. Unless they plan on posting armed security in every class room on campus, there is no way that a college can guarantee the safety of their students from a person with murderous intent. And putting up gun free zone signs are nothing more than saying "Hey, you'll be able to pop a dozen people, have time to reload, and drop several more before you even have to worry about someone trying to stop you." State legislatures and college campi need to get rid of this gun free zone = safety mentality.

Before you say, more guns are never the answer. Ask yourself this... How many times have you heard of a gun store being the victim of an armed robbery? How many shooting sprees happen at gun shows? When was the last mass murder that happened during an NRA meeting? I didn't think so.

When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

OK House of Reps passes Campus Concealed Carry

3/13/08 - Okla. House Passes Campus Gun Bill (Associated Press)

House Bill 2513 introduced by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie...

The state House agreed Thursday to allow people with specialized firearms training, such as military personnel, to carry concealed weapons on the state's college campuses, despite opponents who said it made no sense following shootings at schools across the country.

The measure was approved 65-36, and now heads to the state Senate for a vote.

More can be read at the AP link above.

It is a fairly limited concealed carry bill, but at least it is a start. From what the AP story says, only those with "with firearms training certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education who hold a state concealed weapons license to carry guns on college and university campuses." It also allows active, reserve, honorably discharged military and Guard members to carry concealed as well. This helps to insure that trained and qualified persons have such permits. I don't have much of a problem with this as long as the certified training for civilians isn't to restrictive and inordinately difficult to obtain. I don't mind if the training is difficult, but the process of getting enrolled should be as easy as filling our an enrollment form and paying any necessary fees.

That being said, this next part concerns me.

Murphey's bill would require people authorized to carry a concealed handgun to provide written notice to the university or college president prior to bringing a gun on campus.

This gives the Libs that control college campi a chance to discriminate against law abiding gun owners. Is there any assurance that they will not publish these names? Or give each professor a list of students on campus that are carrying concealed weapons?

My hope is that other states will adopt similar legislation. "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away." It's more than just a catchy phrase.

Why you should carry every day

Here's a good commentary on why every law abiding citizen should carry their weapon with them at all times. Not only thinking short term. As if what might happen if I am only going to get some milk? But what may happen in the long term if more citizens are armed and trained to use the 2nd Amendment to protect their freedom.

Some excerpts from that article. (linked below)

WorldNetDaily commentary
Why you should carry every day
By Gerard Valentino

Several spree killings in non-permissive places like colleges or in states that don't have concealed-carry laws have blasted the gun-control debate back onto the national stage. Pro-gun advocates accurately pointed out that in Illinois, where two of the spree killings took place, citizens are denied their constitutional right to self-defense through the right to bear arms. Being disarmed in the face of a deranged killer must be a terrifying experience.

Even worse, however, is finding yourself at the mercy of an armed thug after you made the decision not to carry because you were just running to the store.

Since the creation of the failed social experiment gun control has become, the establishment media have taught everyone simply to give up their possessions to criminals. The liberalism pervasive in schools has also created generations of people who were taught not to fight back if attacked by another student. Students who are victimized are prohibited from fighting back as a means of protection, which has left us with a generation incapable of dealing with the tyranny of common thugs that prey on people.

Being submissive to criminals has left us with an element in society that uses the false hope of pacifism as an invitation to attack people with impunity.

I really like this next quote.

Since the creation of the failed social experiment gun control has become, the establishment media have taught everyone simply to give up their possessions to criminals. The liberalism pervasive in schools has also created generations of people who were taught not to fight back if attacked by another student. Students who are victimized are prohibited from fighting back as a means of protection, which has left us with a generation incapable of dealing with the tyranny of common thugs that prey on people.

Being submissive to criminals has left us with an element in society that uses the false hope of pacifism as an invitation to attack people with impunity.

Real Gun Control

tag: 2nd Amendment, Blogpower, Lord Nazh

Post of the Day

To follow up from the Quote of the day post, here's basically a response (although it wasn't written in response to her):

I legally carry a concealed handgun on a daily basis. I don’t take my decision to carry lightly.

I’m not a police officer, a private investigator, a bail bondsman or a bounty hunter. I don’t deal with criminals on a daily or professional basis. I’m just an ordinary guy.

I don’t carry merely because it’s my right, although I’m within my rights to do so and I also believe that any right not exercised is a right in danger of being lost.

I don’t carry just because I enjoy firearms and shooting sports, although I do.

I don’t carry because I frequent “bad” areas of town, although in this day and age, any area of town can be “bad” at times. Crime can and does happen when you least expect it. [link]

Read the rest of the post, it is a good post on the reasons to carry a firearm (when legally permitted).

Gun Control - Where We're Headed !!! and ... Second Amendment Second Reading !!!

Ok - so our friends from across the ponds seem to think us Americans would do better to engage in more gun control (read: gun confiscation).

So I thought I'd post these gems that I saved many years ago.

The first one is from Robert Waters and it is called
"Gun Control - Where We're Headed!!"

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. (link)

Go read the whole thing...

You can then draw your own conclusions as to which society you'd rather live in.

The second article is by Daniel Polsby who argues that we should treat the Second Amendment as normal Constitutional Law and not as some bastard child that isn't deserving of sitting at the same table as the others...

Normal constitutional argument begins with text.

The first question to consider, then, is:

What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? There seem to be two main theories of what sense is conveyed by the language of the Second Amendment. The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words to say something like:

"In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons."

This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut from left (e.g., Rep. Charles Schumer of New York) to right (e.g., President Nixon) and most political shades in between.

But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."

Nor do the words of the amendment assert that;

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way:

"Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security."

Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. (link)

Go read the whole thing...

I think Polsby's argument is pretty much rock-solid.

Filed:Constitution, 2nd Amendment, gun laws, Thaiphoon

Gun Control

Here's a gun post that I'll gladly let speak for itself:

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Politics as Usual

Mrs. du Toit

After receiving a quick email from my sister about the events unfolding at Virginia Tech, Kim and I turned on Fox News, just in time to hear a reporter at the White House Press Conference ask “Is the President reconsidering his opinions on gun control NOW?”

And, as usual, the Press Secretary responded calmly and politely.

That is not how I would have responded (which is why I’m not the White House Press Secretary).

Here is how I would have responded:

Listen, you heartless cow, you’re turning this into politics before the bodies have been identified and the next of kin notified. What kind of human being ARE YOU? Do you have ANY sense of compassion AT ALL? Can you turn off your agitate-for-all-things-stupid-machine EVER?

OK, you want to talk the politics of gun control? We’ll talk about it then.

No, the President is not reconsidering his stance on gun control because Virginia Tech is yet another reminder of how counterproductive and counterintuitive gun control is. Over 30 human beings have been added to the death toll, caused by gun control, and your side’s continued efforts to turn America into a nation of victims, instead of a nation of responsible adults. On the contrary, anyone who watched the events in Virginia and thinks that one more law would have made a difference is delusional. (link)

Please read it all. That's what I'd like to hear in response to reporters questions :)

Filed:gun laws, MSM, stupid questions, LordNazh

Shooting

Nothing like a good gun ban to keep the violence down. According to StoptheACLU, bill HB1572 which would allow students at Virginia Tech to carry handguns was shot (no pun intended) down in subcommittee back in January. Why is that important?

Virginia Tech Campus Reels From Shooting That Leaves at Least 33 Dead

Virginia Tech police and administrators struggled to explain late Monday why the campus was not locked down after a deadly shooting earlier in the day, and why students were in classrooms two hours later when a lone gunman entered a campus building and slaughtered 30 people, before turning a gun on himself.

The man responsible for murdering 32 people — the worst mass-murder shooting in American history — who carried no ID, remained unidentified late Monday, police said.

Students complained that there were no public-address announcements or other warnings on campus after the first burst of gunfire that left two dead. They said the first word they received from the university was an e-mail more than two hours into the rampage — around the time it is believed that the gunman struck again. (link)

Yes, there's no definite way to prove that passing the gun law would have kept the body count down, but giving people the right to protect themselves will surely have to come to the left one day. Of course, that day should have come long ago, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it.
__________
Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts

Filed: gun laws, needless death, violence, Virginia Tech, protecting the citizens, LordNazh