"In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."That's funny. This is just the opposite of what a lot of gun owners have been led to believe by the corporate gun lobby. Of course, the gun industry is interested in a lot of people buying guns to keep their profits up. I guess the facts don't matter. But I digress. Police officers lives are particularly at risk from both legal and illegal gun owners. They understand that their job is made more dangerous by both law abiding gun owners in domestic disputes, confrontations, etc. and illegal gun owners.
Over the last several years, there have been confrontations and even ambushes involving gun owners and officers. No wonder officers are suspicious of and even frightened of folks with guns in public places. They have no idea if the guy with the gun is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. When law abiding permit holders start exercising their second amendment rights by openly carrying guns in public to prove a point, it won't be long before someone who isn't legal will do the same. If a law abiding gun owner can carry openly in public, why shouldn't a felon or domestic abuser do the same? Who will know the difference? Will there be shoot-outs in our streets over one person carrying a gun and another not knowing what that person is up to? People will have to carry guns to protect themselves from other law abiding gun owners carrying guns. Crazy. To some extent this is already happening in America.
In my home state, a man climbed a tree with his gun after calling officers to his home. What was he up to? Wanting to kill officers on purpose? Was he suicidal and wanted to die by "suicide by cop"? This is another tragic situation in which an officer was wounded by a crazed man with a gun who then was shot by the officers. Was this an ambush? Does anyone remember Richard Poplawski of Pittsburg "law abiding gun permit holder? I do. Does anyone remember the Tacoma area coffee shop shooting of 4 police officers? I do. I'm just wondering who the "good guys with the guns" were in these cases? Just asking.....You can check out police officer shootings here. So far this year, 20 cops have been killed by firearms.
I wrote recently about "good guys with guns" making political points by showing up at Starbucks stores with openly carried guns. They must think this is going to make their cause more popular. It hasn't. It just makes them look stupid and potentially dangerous. The public does understand the carnage due to guns in communities all over our country. They are aware of public shootings. They understand that guns do not make us safer and indeed, make us less safe. This is the majority view and has been for many years. Most people believe that the second amendment can and does co-exist with common sense gun laws. But what is common sense? Is provoking law enforcement by purposely carrying guns in public common sense? Is intimidating citizens at coffee shops and in our streets common sense?
This Michigan gun owner took videos of his own confrontations with police officers as he carried his shotgun around while walking his dog. First of all, it just can't be much fun going on a walk with a shotgun along. I like to have as little as possible attached to my body while walking. The purpose of a walk is to get exercise. Carrying other things along with you seems to defeat the whole purpose of a walk on a nice day. Why take a gun? What or who will you encounter on a walk? The neighbor kids? A couple out for some exercise? A gang? If you encounter a gang, perhaps you shouldn't be out for a nice walk in that particular neighborhood. Stay away.
Check out this video of the now dead gun owner Pratt having a confrontation with the father of the young woman he later shot. Who was he saying he loved in this video? Eerie:
But I digress. This Michigan gun owner turned out to be not so law abiding. You're law abiding until suddenly you aren't. This "good guy with a gun" shot his girlfriend and himself in June with that shotgun he was carrying around with him to exercise his rights. Do his rights also include shooting another human being just because he owns a gun and he can? More from a related article:
Well then, so much for Pratt's obnoxious and arrogant behavior. He is now dead and has taken someone with him.Holly Harrison was awake late Monday caring for her newborn daughter when she heard yelling coming from her neighbor’s house.Minutes later, she said she became concerned when she heard what she said sounded like gunfire.“In my mind, I went, ‘Was that a gunshot?’” said Harrison, 23, who lives in the 500 block of 10th Street just north of Plainwell.Allegan County sheriff’s deputies responded to the scene about 12:20 a.m. and found Cassaundra Pell, 23, and Pell’s boyfriend, Robert Burnham-Pratt, 24, shot to death.Pell is the daughter of Plainwell Public Safety Officer James Pell.Deputies went to the house after a 911 call from someone who said they witnessed Pell and Pratt arguing and then heard a gunshot.Investigators said it appears that Pratt killed Pell before turning the gun on himself.Sgt. Todd Wagner said earlier Friday that deputies found a shotgun near Pell and Pratt in the house and that investigators believed the shotgun was the weapon used in the murder-suicide.
We are better than this.
What we don't need is these gun rights extremists being in our faces with their guns. It is unseemly, rude, intimidating and obnoxious and unnecessary behavior. What we do need is for the gun culture to get a hold of what it has supported. As long as the far right and the gun advocates allow for this type of behavior by promoting it ( and yes, they do on Open Carry, NRA letters to members and their website and with their own NRA Board members) we will continue to see junk like this occurring in American communities. It is simply not OK. The gun rights guys on my blog claim to be upset by this behavior because it surely doesn't represent them ( I think it does represent some who are reading this blog who make rude and disgusting comments that I don't publish). If it doesn't, what are they going to do about it? Are they going to tell the NRA and other such gun rights groups to stop ramping up the fear and paranoia? Are they going to join with me and others like me who just want the killings to stop and ask for common sense gun legislation and more common sense amongst their own? Until they do we will continue with the carnage. Just take a look at the latest Gun Report from Joe Nocera of the New York Times. Just take a look at the Walmart shootings blog. Just take a look at the Ohh Shoot blog ( where the latest incident is a woman scrap booking in her apartment getting hit in the forehead by a bullet from a neighbor's assault rifle!) Seriously. People should be able to sit in their homes without fear of stray bullets. I'm just saying. They were both lucky wouldn't you say? Just take a look at the Kid Shootings blog. We can't keep up with the number of gun incidents. I'm not making this stuff up. You couldn't possibly.
Who is speaking for the victims? Who is speaking out for what's right? It's time for a change. Let's get to work.
It is interesting that legislators may be bought and paid for by the corporate gun lobby but judges are not. That is why judges make common sense rulings concerning gun policy. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the state of Oregon's ban on loaded guns in public places:
A city of Portland ordinance that prohibits carrying loaded guns in public places does not violate a person's right to bear arms, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruledThe decision in State and City of Portland v. Jonathan D. Christian, released Thursday, is believed to be the first time the state's highest court has weighed in on the ordinance. The justices' endorsement of the law's constitutionality comes as communities across the country continue a heated debate over government regulations of firearms.The ruling, written by Justice Richard Baldwin for the unanimous court, carries implications for more than just Portland, said Harry Auerbach, Chief Deputy City Attorney for Portland. He said several local governments throughout Oregon have similar regulations."The ability of cities statewide to protect their citizens was an important consideration" for the court, he said, adding that the ruling bolsters efforts "to protect the safety of people on the streets of Portland by limiting the number of loaded firearms that are out there."The city ordinance prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in public has existed for decades, although the Portland City Council amended it in December 2010 to add a mandatory jail term of 30 days for violating the ordinance. That amendment was part of a package of new gun laws passed under former Mayor Sam Adams.The case challenging the ordinance stems from the September 2008 arrest of Jonathan D. Christian.The opinion offers an outline of the incident: Christian had carried a bag across a street before placing it behind the counter of a convenience store. He then sat on a chair outside the store.Officers approached soon after and asked if they could search him. He had with him an empty gun holster, a loaded magazine, two knives and pepper spray, the opinion states. After Christian told police about the bag in the store and granted permission to search it, officers located two loaded 9-mm semiautomatic handguns and additional loaded magazines.Arrested and charged with violating state weapons laws and the city ordinance, he was convicted in Multnomah County Circuit Court. He challenged the Portland city ordinance before the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the law violated both the state and U.S. constitutions. But the appeals court affirmed his conviction in 2011.In appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, Christian's lawyers contended that the right to bear arms for self-defense in the home implies a right to carry loaded guns in public places without restriction, according to the opinion's summary.But Justice Baldwin wrote that the ordinance is not a total ban on carrying loaded firearms. Rather, it regulates "the manner of possession and use of firearms in public places." In addition, there are 14 exceptions to the law, which allow those with concealed weapons permits, police officers and several other groups of people to carry a loaded firearm in public places.
Justices understand that a lot of loaded guns in public is a recipe for trouble. It does look like law abiding concealed weapons permit holders can still carry. Based on the incidents about which I have been writing, that could also be dangerous."The ordinance reflects a legislative determination," the justice wrote, "that the risk of death or serious injury to members of the public moving about in public places is increased by the threat posed by individuals who recklessly fail to unload their firearms."
So there was a shooting at a Walmart in Wisconsin. An employee with a concealed carry permit shot another employee:
So Walmart allows citizens to carry guns into their stores but not employees. I think they should re-consider their policies. As long as customers are allowed, why shouldn't employees think they, too, can carry? Just check out the Walmart shootings blog above for why Walmart is wrong to allow loaded guns in and around their stores.The woman suspected of shooting a co-worker on Wednesday at Walmart had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Neenah police said today.The shooting happened shortly before 11:15 a.m. Wednesday in the liquor section of Walmart at 1155 W. Winneconne Ave. The victim, Sharon Goffard, 56, of Neenah, was shot at close range in the abdomen and remains in critical condition at Theda Clark Medical Center.The suspected shooter, Justine Boyd, 56, of Greenville, had a concealed carry permit at the time of her arrest. Police recovered a handgun at the scene owned by Boyd or her husband. Despite the permit, Walmart policy prohibits employees from carrying weapons while on duty, a statement from Neenah police said.“Walmart does not prohibit citizens from carrying legally possessed firearms into the Neenah store,” the statement said. “They do, however, have an internal policy that prohibits their employees from going armed while working in the store.”
And this, dear readers, is one of the stupidest things I have seen in quite a while. Why in the world does this guy think he should take a video of himself prancing around with an assault rifle on his shoulder? Is this the kind of communities we want? NO. This is what we see in countries at war where soldiers are patrolling the streets. This is not what we should be seeing in America. Check out "Starbucks gun appreciation day:
Raise your hand if you think this is cool and makes common sense. We are better than this.