Thursday, August 31, 2006

Do children, township parks, guns go together? Well, DOH, they used to!

Read the story below first, then my comments below it.
Do children, township parks, guns go together?

During the last couple of weeks, I've had the opportunity to research, study and discuss with several township residents Ohio's concealed weapon law and policies. During this time, I heard various views about the topic and learned two key points:

1. Registered gun owners with training and a permit may carry their concealed weapons into non-enclosed parts of many public areas, including our state, regional and township parks. To go even further, a resident may carry a non-concealed gun into a park as long as it is in full view.

2. The home-rule provision of the Ohio Constitution gives cities the right to legislate and manage policy surrounding this topic, but not townships. Currently, our state legislature are working on and moving towards a statewide consistency policy that will help with a clearer understanding surrounding this controversial issue.

So where has this left us, especially those who are elected to protect residents and children?

Just recently, Miami Township was forced to lift its ban on firearms in parks in order to follow the current state law. With this action, I received calls asking me "why?" and "how could this happen?" My response was that we are following the current law in place by the state of Ohio. We are limited with our choices in following what our state legislature has put into law, or else we faced almost certain defeat in court if anyone challenged our ban.

I would never suggest abolishing the right of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Moreover, the criteria for licensing owners in the state of Ohio is a very solid process that does protect us from individuals who should not be a gun owner because of past criminal activity.

All I ask is, "Do children, parks and carrying guns in the open go together?"

The obvious answer is "no." It is common sense to fix an obviously bad predicament. Guns don't belong in parks, only happy, fun loving faces of children. Gun owners have every right to keep and protect what is theirs; but when it comes to guns in the parks, the citizens have the right to protect our children.

What is it that you Buckeyes from Ohio don't understand? We've had county and local park carry since the inception of our shall issue CPL laws here in Michigan. And we've had state park carry for about as long as Ohio has had CCW. You know what, so far, as I know, NO ONE has been shot in any of our parks, by a CPL holder.

And, I CAN remember when children and guns DID go together. I was one of those children. My father would take me and my sister out in the counrty to go shooting. Back then, you could go almost anywhere to do that. Now you have to go to an approved range, hope it's not too close to someone's house who might start complaining about the noise, OR you go to a commercial target shooting range that might be reasonable in their prices, or they might charge out the ear.

And yes, citizens do have a right to protect their children. I protect mine with my lawfully owned, legally carried, concealed pistol. How do you protect your children? With words? Gee, I hope not. You of course realize, that while laws will keep law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun, they NEVER stop the criminal. Yet for some reason, the namby-pamby left wing nut cases NEVER consider the criminal element as a threat. Why is that?, Straight shooters? Puhleese, If they're straight, I must be French! (And I'm not!)

On May 26, 2006, published a little blurb about Angel Shamaya's (founder of ) legal problems in Michigan. Angel was arrested on March 3/4, 2006 on charges of not having his handguns "safety inspected." (This is code for handgun registration in Michigan.) There was also a charge of menacing. Supposedly he threatened his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child.

The final outcome, he plead guilty to four misdemeanor counts of failure to present a handgun for a safety inspection. The potentially serious charge of menacing was not pursued by the County Prosecutor, reportedly due to lack of evidence. (How many people in strained domestic situations do you know were falsely accused? I know more than a few!)

Once everything was said and done with, Angel found himself facing some stiff legal bills. Now, the Montana Shooting Sports Assoc. started a legal defense fund for him. But he still needed more money, so he decided the best thing to do was sell some of his guns (which the court judge had ordered returned to him.). At this point, I do not know if he sold all of his guns or not, but there are no more for sale at this time. I truly hope that he was able to pay all of his bills.

Now, back to the not so straight shooters, They reported that "Angel Shamaya Sells His Guns for the Sake of His Son." Which is quite obviously far from the truth. It's close, but close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. This is neither. What Angel DID decide to do for the sake of his son, was to stay in Michigan. He had been thinking of moving out of the state (and who can blame him.). And I believe that Montana was one of the many places that was hoping he'd move there. But Angel want's to stay as close as he can to his son. Makes sense to me.

But, back to gunguys. Besides this little faux pas, they report on their site about two NYC gun dealers who were raided and had guns confiscated, yet they ignore when the charges are dropped and these dealers get their guns back a day or two later. I thought these guys were straight shooters? If they were, they'd cover the whole story, not just the sensational part. Oh, that's right, I forgot. They're on the same side as the gun grabbing politcos, Mr. Bloomberg, Ms. Feinstein, (Frankly, Frankenstein's monster looks better), and the Brady Bunch. Putting their spin on these stories is SOP.

Sorry, my mistake.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

There's a lesson in this story.

There are at least TWO very important lessons in the story below. Read the story first.
Cops: Rider gave cabbie a bad tip -- a stolen gun

Boonton man arrested for weapon possession


MORRISTOWN -- A taxi driver was arrested Tuesday for accepting a stolen gun that a fare gave him on the way to the airport, police said

Police were called to E-Plus taxi service on Morris Street around 8 a.m. after an employee reported that a co-worker showed him a handgun he received earlier in the day.

The driver, Robert J. Martin, 44, of Boonton, was called back to the company headquarters, where police were waiting. Martin told police that a woman who had been driven to the airport earlier that day gave him the gun and a Swiss Army knife because she did not want to get caught by security checks at the airport.

Martin took Morristown police to his home on Liberty Street in Boonton and gave police the black, semi-automatic 9 mm handgun, which he had placed in a locked closet. The gun was loaded.

Martin was charged with possession of a weapon and receiving stolen property. He was released on $5,000 bail. Morristown police also notified authorities in Florida, where the passenger was traveling.

The owner of E-Plus, George Enslin, declined to comment about the incident on Wednesday, except to say, "it wasn't his fault."

First lesson, if you're going to the airport to fly someplace, leave your weapons at home.

Second lesson, if someone gives you a gun as a tip, YOU have two choices to make immediatly. You either a.) Call the police at once (This should be your only choice, but some of you will want the second one.). OR b.) DO NOT show your tip to fellow cab drivers. By one of Murphy's laws, one of those drivers is bound to be a typical law-abiding citizen, who probably doesn't like you, or doesn't like guns, and is likely to call the cops on you. Anyone who was a TRUE friend, would have advised you to turn it into the police, rather than risking arrest.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

If you ask me, this guy got what he was looking for.

In the story below, you'll read two sides. The father of the intruder's side of the story, and the would be victim's side. With the little foot note by the police, of "...Wesley had a past criminal record." In my humble opinion, Vincent Wesley got what he deserved. If he didn't know better than to menacingly approach an armed woman, than I would guess he wanted to die. If he had only went to her house once, then I'd say there's room for doubt. But he went to her house twice in one night.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the woman. She's the one who took a human life. I'm sure she's suffering for it too. I just hope she doesn't have to defend herself against that criminal's friends and family.

Homeowner Fatally Shoots Would Be Intruder
Last Update: 8/14/2006
(PENSACOLA, Fla.) August 14 -- A grieving father - Ronnie Wesley: "I don't like it.. the way they did my son. Acting like he tried to steal something. I don't like it."

A scared woman - Pam Hagan: "Very upset. My sister is not able to come out of the house. She's traumatized by Saturday night's shooting."

Hagan's sister, a woman in her 50's, fatally shot 29 year old Vincent Wesley, after Escambia County Sheriff's deputies say Wesley tried to enter her Pensacola home twice that night.

According to reports, Wesley climbed the woman's fence, approached the house, and began shaking her door. When she showed him a gun, he ran off, but he wasn't done. According to deputies, Wesley then ran out to the street, tried to carjack someone, and came back to the woman's home when the carjacking was unsuccessful.

Hagan: "At that time, my sister is trying to close the door. When she came out to close the door, her house door closed and locked behind her and there she was, face to face, with a man coming at her. He never said a word to her. She fired once. It didn't stop him. She fired a second time and he went down."

The state of Florida has a law that states, a homeowner does not have to retreat back to their home, that they do have the right to protect their home and property.

Sgt. Mike Ward with the Escambia Co. Sheriff's Dept.: "If someone is trying to enter you residence or trying to harm you and put you in fear in anyway, you can defend yourself to include deadly force and it appears in this case, that's exactly what happened."

But, Wesley's father says his son was never trying to enter the house. He says his boy was dealing with mental problems. Wesley: "He was hearing voices and stuff. He was running from the voices when that lady shot him. He wasn't trying to break in and enter. He had a job."

Meanwhile, as both sides deal with the grief and the loss, Hagan says she and her sister are dealing with harrassment from Wesley's friends and neighbors.

The Escambia County Sheriff's office says Wesley had a past criminal record.

First guns, now swords, what's next, rocks?

First the Brits have virtually banned guns. Now they're going to ban swords and knives. What's next, rocks, or baseball...sorry, Cricket bats? WHEN are they going to get it through to their thick English skulls, that it's not the TOOLS they should go after. It's the people who wield the tools in a criminal manner! They just don't get it. Much as I like Great Britain, right now, you couldn't PAY me to go there. I'd be too afraid I'd be arrested and thrown into jail if I defended myself from some ruffian who might try to mug me.

Swords ban to beat violent crime
A crackdown on the sale of swords has been launched as part of a campaign to tackle knife crime and violence.

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson announced laws to ban swords unless sold for legitimate reasons.

Shops selling swords will need a licence, as will businesses dealing with non-domestic knives and other bladed weapons such as machetes.

The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime.

They come weeks after a nationwide knife amnesty.

A total of 12,645 blades - including lock knives, machetes, swords, meat cleavers, bayonets and axes - were handed in during the five-week amnesty.

For the rest of the story, click here

Monday, August 14, 2006

Happy VJ Day!

To those of you who don't know, 61 years ago today, Japan FINALLY surrenedered, ending World War II. Unfortunately, the supreme war criminal, Emperor Hirohito escaped punishment, in order to facilitate the final surrender. It's too bad he got away. Hopefully, God gave him his come uppence when he passed away back in 1989.

Boo, hoo, hoo. She got "targeted" after her little Op-ed about her brother's death.

Gee, I could just cry...NOT. Ms. Jenny Price, (Freelance writer and research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.) was just "speechless" at the attacks on her account of her brother's death.

When you dare to call for the removal of a natural (Or, God given) right, don't be surprised if you piss some people off. In your zeal to "protect" us from the "evil" gun, you've made the common mistake of overlooking that:

1. Guns don't have morals, feelings, or intelligence. GUNS, do not start violence. They are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe morals and intelligence to firearms is a typical Anti-Freedom ploy.

2. However, if you are determined to go after inanimate objects and blame them for death and destruction, there are items that cause way more deaths each and every year, that no one seems bothered about. Why not go after cars? In 2003, the CDC reports that over 44,000 people died as a result of auto accidents in the USA alone!

3. And what about medical mistakes? In 2000, it was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that at least 225,000 people die each year from medical mistakes. Maybe we should ban doctors?

My point is this. If you want to be active for something that will protect human life, why not be active AGAINST gun control? Optimistic estimates are that at least 2,000,000 people use firearms defensively each year. FBI statistics put this number considerably lower. Somewhere in the region of 750,000 or so. Still quite a large number, and considerably more than the number of people who are maliciously killed or injured with firearms.

Take away guns, and you take away ALL those people who were saved by the presence of a gun. Gun control only affects the law-abiding citizens. It does not stop the criminally minded. IF a person wants a gun to commit a crime, they will find a way to get one.

This has been proven in other areas. Back in 1919, when Prohibition started, people still wanted alcohol. They found it, they made it, they drank it. Prohibition also helped increase the size and power of organized crime. If we prohibit gun ownership by the private citizen, all you're doing is creating a nation of victims. IF that is what you want, why not move to Great Britain?

Oh, and hows that war on drugs going? We're really stopping all the drug users with prohibition, aren't we.

Look, I'm sure what happened to you and your family was a tradedy. But creating a breeding ground for more tragedy will not bring your brother and his fiancee back. What I find odd though, LA has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the land, and they did not protect your brother, and his financee. Maybe it's the anti-gun laws that need to be stopped, before they kill again!

I have to add one more comment here. To all the guys who stay up till 3:00AM in their underwear, typing these unwarranted attacks on the anti-gun types like Ms. Jenny Price (Freelance writer and research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.), you guys have GOT to get a life. Name calling is NEVER, I repeat, NEVER justified, even if they deserve it. It only belittles your own political stance. And I think some of you owe Ms. Price an apology for calling her story about her brother's death into question.

But that's just my opinion, like everything else on this blog.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Is it Mohammed, or Muhammed? Or is it just plain hipocrisy?

For those who might like to know, some "Mohammed" icons.

Muhammad (((:~{>
Muhammad as a pirate (((P~{>
Muhammad on a bad turban day ))):~{>
Muhammad with sand in his eye (((;~{>
Muhammad wearing sunglasses (((B~{>
Mohammad with a lit bomb in his turban *-O)):~{>
The devil mo ]:~{>
Mohammed with a nuclear bomb in his turban. @=(((:~{>
Muhammad being shot by Starship Enterprise =-o * * * (((:~{>
Muhammad sees a Danish cartoonist !((((8~{o>

The above come from the Mohammed Image Archive on

Also from the same place, the following image that I found of interest.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Yet another Dr. who doesn't know a gun from his anus.

Unsafe Gun Storage Endangering Teens

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay ReporterWed Aug 9, 7:02 PM ET

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Parents with small children usually store firearms safely enough in the home, but that's not always the case when their kids are teens, U.S. researchers report.

"It seems that parents are more concerned about gun safety when they have really young kids and aren't that concerned when they have older kids," explained lead researcher Renee M. Johnson, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Parents seem to believe that older children are old enough to act responsibly and use good judgment, Johnson said.

Statistics show that about one-third of American households with children also contain guns, and many gun injuries among children take place in the home. Earlier studies have found that while safe storage practices can reduce the risk of gun-linked injury or suicide, 14 percent to 30 percent of people with guns keep at least one firearm fully loaded. In addition, about 43 percent store one gun in an unlocked place.

Overall, about 2 million U.S. children may live in homes with loaded, unlocked firearms, the researchers said.

Their study suggests the danger varies according to children's age, however.

"We found that parents of older kids had less safe firearms practices and had their firearms stored in a manner that is easy to get to," Johnson said. "For example, parents of adolescents were more likely to have their firearms stored unlocked and loaded than if there were younger kids in the house," she said.

Johnson said noted that a significant number of U.S. teens die each year from gun injury. "Adolescents are more likely to die from firearm injury and suicide," she said. "And a lot of kids are getting guns from the home."

The report was published in the August issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

In the study, Johnson's team questioned nearly 400 parents who kept firearms in their homes. The researchers asked about attitudes and beliefs about guns, ownership and storage practices.

They found that 22 percent kept a loaded gun, 31.5 percent had an unlocked gun, and 8.3 percent had an unlocked, loaded gun.

In just over 28 percent of homes, all the children were between 13 to 17 years of age, and these were the homes with the highest rates of unsafe gun-storage practices. For example, 42 percent of these homes contained an unlocked gun, compared with about 29 percent of homes with children 12 years of age or younger.

"Parents are concerned about their younger kids, but forget about the older kids," Johnson said. "They just aren't thinking about the risks."

One expert said too many U.S. homes have guns, and, in many cases, accidents are just waiting to happen.

"The notion that a gun in the home is useful for self-defense in the advent of an intrusion is belied by the data," said Dr. David L. Katz, an associate professor of public health and director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine. "A gun is 40 times more likely to injure its owner or a member of the household than it is to be used in warding off an intruder," he said.****

Far too many homes in which children of any age live have the unnecessary hazard of an accessible gun, Katz said. "Ideally, fewer people would own guns. Nearly as good is having all gun owners store their firearms unloaded and locked," he said.

**** You'll note the quote about a gun being 40 times more likely to injure it's owner or other member of the household. This is from the NOW DISCREDITED Kellerman study. Check out Guncite for relavant info on this particular problem. Needless to say, Ms. Johnson and Dr. Katz, wouldn't know a gun if it jumped up and bit their butts!

As for the comment about
far too many homes in which children of any age live have the unnecessary hazard of an accessible gun...
I guess they forgot about the Carpenter household. On August 23, 2000, there were no "accessible guns," because they were all locked up, as required by California state law. The guns were unloaded, and out of reach of the children who had been trained to use and handle them safely. The end result, one maniac dead by police, two INNOCENT children dead by the maniac. All because the gun was locked up, UN-accessible to those who knew how to use it. Thank you Dr. Katz and Ms. Johnson for your concern.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Dr. Lott is wrong??? Yeah, then I must be the King of Siam.

Comments on the controversy over Lott and Mustard's article on the effect of shall issue laws on crime rates, by David Friedman

As a result of a usenet argument and general interest in the subject, I have recently become involved in the controversy over the Lott and Mustard paper. In addition to webbing John's responses to his critics, with appropriate links, I thought it would also be worth adding some of my own comments. Here are some of them.

Teret's Double Standard

In his critique of the Lott and Mustard article, Stephen Teret objects that they did not allow for a variety of complications that might be relevant to the relationship they were measuring, and concludes that their results are worthless. Quite aside from whether his claims are true (Lott argues that they are not), it is interesting to see how his standards change when he is dealing with a study whose results he agrees with.

Take a look at the story describing a study done by Dr. Garen Wintemute on the relation between "junk" guns and crime. It consisted of collecting a sample of 5,360 Californians between 21 and 25 years of age who legally bought handguns in 1988, collecting criminal histories, and looking at the relation between what kind of guns people bought and how likely they were to subsequently commit a crime.

According to an online description of the research "Associations were assessed by relative risks adjusted for gender and race or ethnicity." It seems clear the study did not control for income. On average, poorer people are both more likely to be convicted of crimes and more likely to buy cheap guns if they are available--it does not follow that if cheap guns are banned, poor people will stop committing crimes. I predict with some confidence that if Wintemute had redone his study, looking at cars instead of guns, he would have discovered that cheap cars cause crime too.

Wintemute's work, judging by the online examples, is legitimate research, although done at (statistically speaking) a fairly primitive level and obviously intended for propagandistic purposes. The authors take much less care than Lott and Mustard do to control for relevant variables, to check results by rerunning the regressions on a variety of different assumptions, use all available data, report potential problems, and the like. Unlike Lott and Mustard, they have no direct data at all on the results of the policy (banning cheap handguns) that they are arguing for.

" "I would say that it's very good evidence that those guns are problematic," said Stephen Teret, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University and a good friend of Wintemute."

This is Round Two
(adapted from a usenet post of mine)

This is really the second round of the battle over statistics between economists and sociologists, criminologist's, et. al., the first being fought over Isaac Ehrlich's work on the effect of the death penalty and more generally over the issue of deterrence. In each case, if you look at the history of the articles, you find the same pattern:

Time A: Statistical work is being done by non-economist non-statisticians, typically criminologist's, sociologists, physicians etc., and is relatively primitive--on the order of comparing average murder rates in all states with the death penalty to average murder rates in all states without, or selecting a small sample of counties, without offering any basis for choosing those instead of others, and reporting what happened in those counties after a shall issue law was adopted, without controlling for any other variables. The results of this work--that the death penalty does not deter and that laws permitting concealed carry increase the murder rate--are routinely reported as scientific facts by people in the field.

Time B: An economist (Ehrlich, Lott) does a study an order of magnitude more sophisticated, using both time series and longitudinal data, controlling for relevant factors insofar as data is available, using techniques such as second stage least squares to try to control for problems with unobservable variables, etc. It produces a result that the people in the field don't like.

Time C: People in the field publish furious attacks on the economist and on his study; the latter, insofar as they are legitimate, are arguments showing that there are possible explanations for his results other than the one he gave--which is almost always true, to some degree, of statistical results. These attacks apply a standard of proof enormously higher than that applied to the Time A studies--which the same people happily accepted.

David Friedman's Home Page
Back to my page of links relevant to the controversy