Concealed Carry

An off duty police officer was shopping with his girlfriend when a man opened fire in a cellular phone store.

Moore was off-duty and shopping with his girlfriend in the Commercial Drive store Thursday when 79-year-old Abraham Dickan entered and opened fire on the employees.

Moore used his personal gun to return fire, killing him, police said.

I love how it was his personal firearm that was used and he was out shopping. Only one person was struck by the attacker. After seeing this earlier today I just had to laugh:

Posted by Coran T at 6/1/2010 11:14 a.m.

You know Malichite, 

thats kind of the point. We as a society shouldn't have to feel the need to carry all the time every where. I don't begrudge anyone that choses to, but I myself (an avid gun owner) feel that stores are the last place that I need to carry one. You are right, no one knows when and where, but to carry one into Lowes, and then should Thug Joe walk in waving his around, I doubt I or anyone else would have the presence of mind and the requisite training to take him down without endangering others around us. And I can assure I have had extensive training in firearms use, but that was a different setting, not a local store. Lowes is not a controlled gun range, nor is it a competition urban range either. Those are controlled areas where everyone that could be harmed are moved into secure areas up range. This is a live area, with real bullets coming at you as well as yours going at them and anyone near them. So to walk into a store expecting to take the bad guy out in a grand display of heroism, is foolish at best for even the most avid of shooters. Another thing to take into account is that this is not a war zone. There are consequences for collateral damage here. This wasn't some burned out hovel in the streets of Fallujah. This is an American store populated and operated by Americans, just like you and me. And when a bullet goes astray or off target because you squeezed one off while taking cover has far more dire consequences than taking out a Islamic extremist in Baghdad. So in short I would have to disagree with you on principal here. Disarming idiot thugs in this setting should be left to the professionals and not the weekend warriors with a penchant for Dirty Harry movies.

The whole incident was ended with only one innocent injured because someone was carrying a firearm while shopping. Very few people I spend significant time around do not carry. Those that do carry firearms all state the same reason for carrying everywhere, even for a trip down to the corner store, "It can happen anytime and anywhere and it benefits no one to be disarmed by choice." Being an unarmed victim is a choice that can easily result in your death. My goal is self preservation of myself and those around me, if you see something wrong with that might I suggest seeking professional help. There are those who truly live by the scout motto, and those that just pay lip service. Guess where I live.

Also the comments regarding proper training are a joke. You have officers that screw up so badly they kill a 7 year old girl. Most officers only have to qualify twice a year and even then it's a minimal course. I shoot more rounds a year than three average officers in Pullman PD combined. There are also many instances of civilian response with 0 innocent casualties due to civilian responders. If you don't want to carry a weapon that's fine. Don't be bigoted towards those who are willing to do the job because you're too cowardly to handle the responsibility.

An officer was shot and killed during a robbery attempt today in Chicago. Mayor Daley is using this opportunity to say that a stricter handgun ban would have prevented the shooting.

The 30-year-old officer was shot as he left his father's house on the South Side early Thursday morning by would be robbers.

"If this person didn't have this, never happened," the mayor said, holding up a handgun on display for the news conference.

Instead of fixing the issue that has caused people to open carry as a public statement, Lori Saldaña just wants to stop them from making their statement.

To some lawmakers, carrying around an empty gun seems threatening. In a quick response to this perceived but non-threat, AB1934 was drafted to make it a crime to carry an empty firearm in plain view. The bill's author, Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, is quoted as saying, "What I'm concerned about is people, who have no training, can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement."

California is a may-issue state. Translation for the uninitiated; do you like kissing ass? Because if you want a license, start kissing your local sheriffs ass. People to protest this have been doing protests legally by carrying unloaded firearms openly. Instead of looking at the flaws in the process, she intends to further restrict and punish law abiding citizens. I find it interesting that some law makers are uncomfortable by firearms being in possession of their constituents, is it because they're afraid that one day they may be held accountable for their actions?

Senator Lautenberg feels that it is better to expand the areas of an airport so murderers can work unhindered law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves.

"In the post-9/11 world, it simply defies common sense that it would be legal to carry a gun into an airport," he said in a statement. "Our airports face threats every day and allowing someone to walk into a major airport with a loaded gun is a recipe for disaster. My legislation will ban guns in airports and make air travel more safe and secure."

Already you cannot carry a firearm on a plane legally. What is changing is that when your family comes to pick you up from the airport they cannot be armed. Your husband or wife will have to leave their self-defense tools in the vehicle, to possibly be stolen, instead of carrying them with. Your family is just meeting you at the baggage claim and then walking back to the car, they're not going anywhere near the "secured area". Why would you need a gun though, all those security guards inside make it perfectly safe. Sure you feel safe inside, but what about all those people outside. They know you're unarmed so instead the thug can wait to rob you in the garage where there are no security guards. Way to go genius!

Also, I love the use of the 9/11 crutch. I'm surprised I don't hear more Pearl Harbor crutches currently to support internment of the Japanese. But we can totally trust the government. I would also like to point out the Democrat hero FDR interred the Japanese. Still trust those democrats?

    Evidently Child Abuse registries are much like restraining orders, due process is unnecessary to be listed. Many people do not realize how many rights are disrupted without requiring your presence in court. Merely being charged with a felony permanently disrupts your ability to purchase firearms. Well permanently unless you're willing to pay money to the ATF and FBI. I was unable to purchase firearms due to a NICS black list for a year after the charges were dropped. I was not convicted of a felony, the charges were dropped, the State of Washington even returned the firearm I had in my possession the day of the accident, yet I could NOT purchase a firearm. That NICS hold did not even require my being found guilty in court, it was automatic. To this day that blip on my record still causes issues. I receive a week hold when purchasing firearms others can walk out with immediately. I'm delayed in background checks for other materials, such as when I got checked out to work for Joe. Once your name is placed onto any list, it is difficult if not impossible to remove. If you can remove it, they extort you for money.

On Joe's blog today Joe posted another question from Mark Philip Alger to go along with the "Just One Question".

To summarize here:

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to... protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...?

This morning on the radio it was announced that recently there have been hate crimes on the WSU campus. What I heard was "Forced disarmament ensures victims for hate crimes!" Many would look at the geographic location and figure that it's because we're "rural" and don't like people who are different. The fact is though, this is actually pretty far off and one hell of a stereotype. The same crap happened while I was at UW in Seattle. This same stereotype is often used against gun owners. This is even more of a slap since many gun owners view firearms as a line of self defense that EVERYONE has a right to. It is the universal leveler than ANYONE can use to defend themselves.

The fact that the University forces everyone, including those who want and have more need than normal to provide for their own personal defense, to be disarmed is disconcerting.

I haven't written much lately because I've been tied up with work and making sure I graduated from college. Not to mention the fact that I've been trying to benefit my blood pressure by avoiding things that just flat out piss me right the hell off. Well I stumbled across something today that pushed my button so hard I can't stand it.

"In 2004, while running for the U.S. Senate, he[Obama] promised to bar citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits."

Came across a nice article on concealed carry that says yet again what has been said so many times.

Concealed carry could save your life

Every time I read about a school massacre or other shooting by criminals or crazies, when someone mentions giving the right to carry a concealed weapon on or off campus, I wonder why so many oppose this solution....

Spotsylvania

It's good to know I'm not the only one; especially with all the B.S. in Seattle.

Lately the idea of living on the west side of Washington has become more and more displeasing. I have been seeing Strong examples of the differences between myself and those hippie feel good tree huggers.

So I woke up this morning to the news that Washington State University is now providing classes on what to do if an armed gunman comes on campus. It is to "educate students when to hide and when to flee."

I know many may see this as the end of the world but I believe Jefferson said it best, "Laws against the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither disposed nor inclined toward violence."