Dave Kopel: Want to Stop Mass Shootings? Get More Guns in Right Hands

Independence Institute Director of Research Dave Kopel and attorney Joseph Greenlee had this op/ed in The Hill earlier this week that makes the case for allowing people to carry firearms.  They use what happened in the recent London Bridge attacks and several mass shootings in the U.S. to make their point:

Mass killers often select targets because of the absence of armed defenders at the scene. The Aurora theater murderer selected a “gun-free” theater, which forbade licensed handgun carry by its patrons. He had chosen not to attack an airport because of “substantial security.” The Santa Barbara murderer decided against attempting a massacre at a public Halloween party because “there were too many cops” and “one gunshot from a cop will end everything.” The Charleston church murderer abandoned his original target, the College of Charleston, “because of the security.” The Los Angeles Jewish Community Center murderer passed on three other Jewish institutions because the “security was too tight.” In Detroit, a would-be ISIS murderer, who was stopped before he could execute his plan, targeted a large church since “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.”

The United Kingdom could reduce the toll of terrorist attacks by arming and training all police officers, instead of just a select few. The result would be more jihadis stopped after 80 seconds instead of 480 seconds—a life or death difference.

Kopel was on NRATV.com to discuss the piece in more detail after it was published.

Guest Post: Defensive Gun Use - Self-Defense and the Rule of Law

By Bruce Lawlor

One talks about how often people use firearms in self-defense at great peril. It is a name your poison debate. The studies are all over the place, ranging from a low of between 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year1 to a high of 4.7 million incidents per year.2  Both sides of the gun control argument cite the need for self-defense, or the lack thereof, in support of their respective positions, and both sides twist the numbers to mean what they want them to mean. Mark Twain was right. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.3

Still, the studies provide some insight into the exercise of self-defense if one is willing to accept the research’s unsettled state. Except for true believers in the anti- and pro- gun crowds, few people think the number of defensive gun incidents each year is as low as 55,000 or as high as 4.7 million. In this discussion, it's best to avoid focusing on a specific number and just accept Mark Twain's admonition, unless you like spending countless hours wading through false assumptions, questionable extrapolations, and card-stacking conclusions in search of agenda based opinions.

A good place to look for trends versus numerical certainty is a paper published in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” An Obama Administration initiative, the paper surveyed the current literature and highlighted areas where its authors felt more research would be valuable. It was pretty much what one would expect from a federal agency advocating for more money, but some of its findings contradicted the administration’s preferred narrative about gun violence. The departure from Obama orthodoxy brought praise from proponents of the 2d Amendment, and criticism from gun control advocates. In fairness, had the report's findings been just the opposite, that is, supportive of the administration's view, the only difference in the praise and criticism would have been its originators. Such is the gun control debate.

The CDC's paper found that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”4  It also found that people who use firearms to protect themselves had lower injury rates then “victims who used other self-protective strategies.”5 These two findings are relevant to the law of self-defense because, even if the lowest estimate of defensive gun use is accepted as the right one, a lot of Americans are using firearms to protect themselves from danger every year. Moreover, the paper seems to say that for those inclined to fight back, firearms are the most effective means to avoid or reduce injury.

Couple these findings with the fact that four of every ten U.S. households has a gun, and sixty-three percent of Americans believe that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place6, and it underscores the need for people to better understand how the law treats self-defense shootings. The rule of law exists to control behavior, but it also exists to protect ordinary people from the arbitrary abuse of power by those who are simply powerful, including those who would use unlawful force to threaten their lives and well-being. Regardless of the exact number, people in the United States use firearms to defend themselves thousands and thousands of times each year, and we need to do a better job of helping them to understand what the law says they can and cannot do.

(Bruce Lawlor is the author of a new book When Deadly Force is Involved.  In the book Lawlor explains the legal concepts that have become duty to retreat, castle doctrine and stand your ground.)
_______________________________
1 David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates, 87J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1430 (1997).
2 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", NIJ Research in Brief, May 1997.
3 Mark Twain, "Lies," http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html
4 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm Related Violence, (Washington, D.C.: The National Acadamies Press, 2013) p. 15, https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
5 Ibid, p. 16.
6 Justin McCarthy, "More Than Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer," GallupNovember 7, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

When Deadly Force is Involved

There is a new book by Major General (Ret.) Bruce Lawlor titled: When Deadly Force is Involved: A look at the legal side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and other questions of Self Defense.  He shared pre-publication portions of the book with VSSA Board Members earlier this year and now that the book is out, John Caile of USCCA has done a review.  From Caile's review:

“[This book] describes a legal framework for thinking about self-defense that is applicable everywhere. It doesn’t focus on the laws of any one state, nor does it compare the laws of one state with those of another.”

This is where Mr. Lawlor’s approach is especially effective. Most self-defense writers spend time dissecting particular court rulings with their arcane and often confusing legal jargon. In addition, too often the results of one case are used to predict that a defendant in a different but similar case will “surely be acquitted” (or just as surely “convicted”).

Instead, Mr. Lawlor creates intriguing fictional “composite” cases, drawn from his considerable experience, each of which highlights a particular aspect of self-defense law (provocation, imminent harm, reasonableness of fear, retreat, etc.), as well as covering how laws such as “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground” are interpreted by judges and juries.

This approach allows the author to use his excellent storytelling skills to, like a good novelist, create much deeper and more complex images of the various participants involved. We get to know them intimately, their histories, their views, even their emotions. We know not just what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it. This makes the cases more memorable, and the legal realities we are likely to face that much easier to understand.

Lawlor is currently the Director of the Center for Technology, Security, and Public Policy at Virginia Tech. When he met with the VSSA Board, he was asked why he wrote a book about self-defense, a subject usually thought of as being about guns. He explained, “While I confess to being pro 2nd Amendment, that is not what made me write the book. Rather it came from thinking about homeland security, and about the individual’s responsibility for his or her own protection.”

The book takes on each element of the use of deadly force and explains what happens after a person uses deadly force to avoid being killed or seriously injured. It is based on actual shootings. There are fifteen chapters that discuss the major legal issues that surface in virtually every self-defense case. Each chapter describes a different shooting incident, how the authorities handled it, and most importantly, why it was decided the way it was. When Deadly Force is Involved provides a practical working knowledge of how the law of self-defense works, removing some of the mystery that surrounds what appears to be a hodgepodge of statutes and court decisions.

Lawlor was also interviewed earlier today by NRATV's Cam Edwards.  He spoke about why he wrote the book and the approach he took.

Rob Pincus' I.C.E. Training Coming to Richmond Area

Firearms trainer Rob Pincus is bringing his Two Person Armed Defense (TPAD) and the 1 Day Combat Focus Carbine (CFC) training courses to Doswell, VA (Hanover County) on April 12-13, 2017.

The TPAD course is intended for two people to register together, (couples, co-workers, friends, etc) who are generally both armed and interested in learning about how to coordinate their efforts in a worst case scenario. The training will draw from law enforcement, military and security team training and be applied to the context of personal defense in the public space as well as being at home or in the workplace. It is suggested that students take a Combat Focus Shooting (CFS) Course from an Active I.C.E. Certified Instructor prior to TPAD to get the most out of this training, though it is not a prerequisite. Topics to be covered include:

1. Review of Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting 
2. Communication, Coordination & Cooperation, the Three C's of Teamwork during a Dynamic Critical Incident 
3. Danger Areas & Fields of Fire 
4. Dealing with Multiple Threats Efficiently 
5. Coordinated Strings of Fire 
6. Shooting in Defense of Others (including children) 
7. Movement to Cover & Evasion 
8. Home or Workplace Defense Planning 
9. Emergency Trauma Medicine Basics 
10. Immediate Aftermath of a Shooting 
11. Other topics driven by student questions, context and gear.

You will need a pistol, 3 magazines, holster, and a minimum of 400 rounds.

The CFC Program applies the principals of the Combat Focus Shooting Program to the world of semi-automatic rifles, stressing efficiency, working with what the body does naturally and training in context. The CFC is a progressive and dynamic course. Students will engage in a variety of shooting drills and maneuvers designed to make their shooting (sighted and unsighted) more intuitive. In addition to the fundamentals of close quarters defensive rifling, students will be guided through handling techniques, transitions to back up weapons and understanding how a variety of factors affect their balance between speed and precision with a carbine. Improvised shooting positions for heightened precision capabilities (smaller targets & ranges out to 150 yards) will also be covered.

Students should plan on 450 rounds of ammunition for this course-400 rifle and 50 pistol. (Students are welcome to bring extra ammunition, as there will be certain drills where round count can easily be increased.)

For more information on the training, cost, and registration, click here and here.

Self-defense Strategies for the Family

Earlier this week, Natalie Foster, creator of Girls Guide to Guns and host of Love at First Shot, had this article at America's 1st Freedom on the subject of Moms and Armed Self-defense.

The firearm, the safe, the training—it’s the holy trinity of gun ownership. Across our Second Amendment-loving community, there exists a general consensus that these three elements shall not be separated. I learned this the day I was given my first gun, and have abided by it ever since. And like many single women, back then I obtained my concealed-carry permit, was diligent about my own safety and maintained my gun training religiously. Situational awareness was always paramount in my thinking, as my trainers, colleagues and family had preached. But those were the days before I became a mom.

Yes, I’ve still got the guns and the safes, but my training needs an update. Sure, many of the basic skills I’ve learned over a few years of training still apply, but when I’ve got my son with me, the rules change altogether—and not in my favor.

For example, when you’re alone, getting into the car in a parking lot is simple. You’ve got your situational awareness radar up and keys in hand long before you approach the vehicle. You walk quickly and confidently toward the car, press the unlock button on approach, open the door, sit down and lock it. You’ve moved safely from parking lot to secured vehicle in a matter of seconds.

Now add a kid. The task list becomes much longer: Lock stroller wheels, place child in car seat, buckle car seat, throw diaper bag in the floorboard, open trunk, fold stroller, heave stroller into trunk, close trunk, rummage inside diaper bag for the snack you swear you packed, hand child the snack, grab bottle (is the temperature ok?), hand cold bottle to the child, close all open car doors, walk around the car, open driver door (shoot, where are the keys?), find the keys, seatbelt, lock door. Whew.

She goes on to talk about the special needs of the mom, and how, with a couple of exceptions, there is very little defense training tailored to parents.  She ends the article by imploring trainers to develop training that addresses the special needs of a moms and dads with children.

Apparently Foster is not the only person thinking about this topic.  On the same day her article was posted, I received my weekly email from DownrangeTV that included the below video on family self-defense strategies.  In the video, Michael Janich of Spyderco, Inc., discusses how one of the things the family primary defender should consider is to make sure you have at least some type of a plan that allows your family to get to safety while you take care of business.

 

The New York Times Takes Up Campus Carry Debate

On Monday, The New York Times opened up it's editorial space to four guest commentators to "debate" the topic of campus carry.  It was less a debate than it was each writer stating the reasons for their position.  One was rape victim Amanda Collins who wrote why she would have liked to have had her firearm on campus and there was a professor at the University of Texas who wrote that allowing firearms on campus will make them less safe and restrict academic freedom.  There was a recent college graduate who wrote opposing campus carry, and there was George Mason University Law Professor Nelson Lund who wrote in support of campus carry noting that campus police cannot prevent violent crimes.

You may have heard one of Ms. Collins' appearances on NRANews.com where she has discussed what happened to her and how campus rules disarmed her and left her defenseless.  She freely admits that she does not know what would have happened that night had she had her firearm; all she wanted was the chance to defend herself.

The Texas professor, Javier Auyero, uses the same tired reasons for opposing campus carry, namely that not only will it make campuses less safe but will "stifle classroom debate."  He claims that if the legislature had cared about basing their decision on "logical evidence based arguments" they would have listened to people like William H. McRaven, the chancellor of the University of Texas and a former Navy SEAL, and Art Acevedo, chief of the Austin Police Department because they both know "when there are more guns around, there is more risk – it’s as simple as that."  What Professor Auyero does not put forth is the "evidence" found in the state of Colorado from Colorado State University, where campus carry has been legal for years with no issues related to academic freedom. Independence Institute Director of Research wrote in 2009:

Yet, if one drives just a few hours north on Interstate 25 to Colorado State University, where licensed carry is allowed in classrooms, there has been no evidence of any diminution of academic freedom. Nor are there reports of any impairment of academic freedom at the nine public colleges and universities in Utah, at the three Blue Ridge campuses in Virginia, or in Israel, Thailand, or Norway.

In fact, Kopel continues, the only evidence of restrictions on academic freedom related to campus carry are on advocates of campus carry.

We know where the New York Times stands when it comes to the right to bear arms but they at least offered a balanced forum for advocates on both sides of this issue to state their case.  I recommend reading all four Op/Eds.

Former Head of Interpol Says Armed Citizens Can Save Lives

Independence Institute Director of Research Dave Kopel had a great piece at the Volokh Conspiracy this week on former Interpol Secretary-general Ron Noble's new video examining the Westgate Mall mass shooting in Nairobi and how armed citizens saved hundreds of lives.  In the post, Kopel says in Noble's video, we see the difference between a "moderate" gun control advocate and folks like Katie Couric, who is making the rounds with a new gun ban film:

As Noble explains, his 14 years of close involvement in global counterterrorism changed his perspective on gun control. This week, he has published a video about the 2013 mass shootings at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi. The video, “Armed Citizens Can Help Stop Terrorist Massacres Like Nairobi and Paris,” shows graphic footage of the attack and of the response of armed citizens. During the lengthy and well-planned attack, more than 60 innocent people were murdered. As Noble explains, the death count would have been hundreds more if not for the armed citizens who intervened. As Noble puts it, “This is not an American argument, nor a political argument. In these horrific situations, law-abiding armed citizens have helped protect others and literally saved lives, and the world should be made aware of this reality. . . . In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns can and do save lives.”

Noble still favors a variety of non-prohibitory gun regulations that I do not. Yet the global question is not about the exact scope of Second Amendment rights in the United States. In Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and the United States, mass shootings have become all too common. The perpetrators may be terrorists, gangs or people with mental illness. (The last category overlaps significantly with the first two categories.) The global question is about reducing the number of innocent people who are murdered. Among the important steps in saving lives is acknowledging that victims of mass attacks are necessarily their own first responders. As Westgate Mall demonstrated, when innocent victims have the tools of defense, innocent lives are saved.

On Tuesday, Kopel appeared on NRANews.com's Cam and Company and discussed his post at the Volokh Conspiracy as well as the new video Noble has posted on Vimeo.

Governor McAuliffe Playing Games with Bill to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence

HB 766, and SB 626, bills that would effectively make a protective order a temporary concealed handgun permit (CHP), covering the person being protected by the order while waiting for their CHP application to be processed and their permanent CHP to be issued.  Both bills passed the House and Senate.  During consideration of the bills in committee, both the gun ban lobby and groups representing domestic-violence survivors said women would not be capable of defending themselves with a firearm in an emergency.  Apparently, they shared the same views with Governor McAuliffe because instead of signing the bills, he has sent down a substitute bill for consideration that neuters the bill’s intent of allowing a victim to immediately begin to carry a concealed handgun for protection.

The Governor’s substitute does the following:

1.  Allows judges to arbitrarily deny the temporary permit. 
2.  Requires the victim to have already applied for a CHP before the protection order was requested, basically making the victim have to know ahead of time that they are going to need a protective order and thus apply for the CHP in anticipation of the violence against them.
3.  Requires the victim to have already completed the firearms training needed to get a CHP, but prohibits the use of the online option that other CHP applicants can currently use.

The original bills passed with veto proof margins in both houses.  The bills are now on the calendar for consideration by both the House and Senate and both were passed by for the day today.  Contact your delegate and state senator today and urge them to defeat Govornor McAuliffe's substitute.

Update: The House and Senate passed the bills by for the day on Thursday.  Continue to make your voice heard to your delegate and state senator.

Yes, People Do Use Guns for Self Defense

The gun ban advocates tout a recent study that claims owning a gun does not make you safer.   While that study has already been debunked, it is far more convincing to hear from someone who did fear for her life and turned to buying a firearm and training to use it for the purpose of protecting her life.   This morning, actress Kelly Carlson appeared on Fox News to talk a little about her experience and how she turned to the NRA for help, as well as promoting her appearance on the Outdoor Channel's NRA All Access airing tonight.

Here is a preview of the NRA All Access segment.

Update:Carlson spoke more in-depth with Cam Edwards about her experience during Wednesday's NRANews program.

Debunking the Violence Policy Center's Not So New Claims on Armed Self Defense

On Wednesday, the anti-rights Violence Policy Center trotted out what they call a "new" report that makes the claim gun owners rarely use firearms for self defense.  VPC based the report on FBI data on "justifiable homicides."  As the NRA and Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center pointed out however, this is just a recycled claim the anti-rights lobby has used for years.  Using justifiable homicides data is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it totally discounts the fact that a number of people defend themselves with a firearm without ever firing a shot.  Lott also points out that only about 1 percent of police departments report justifiable homicides by police and it is even worse for civilian justifiable homicide.  To take it a step further, Dr. Lott noted that even for those states that do report such data, very few localities within those states actually compiled the numbers.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz have conducted a more reliable survey on the topic that can be found here.

 

 

NPR: Do Guns on the Premises Make Workplaces Safe?

That's the question addressed in an All Things Considered story on Friday.  The report looked at the states that have laws allowing employees to keep a firearm in their car while at work.  When will people learn that a "No Weapons Allowed" sign will not stop someone intent on doing harm.  Concealed Carry Magazine executive editor Kevin Michalowski, was featured in the story and told how his brother attempted to rob a business in Arizona and was stopped by an off duty police officer who happened to have his firearm.  The story is also another illustration how people who are not gun owners don't understand the concept of concealed carry:

In 1993, Heisse was working in a high-rise building in San Francisco when failed businessman Gian Luigi Ferri opened fire, killing eight people before turning the gun on himself. Some of the victims included Heisse's colleagues.

"What I wasn't prepared for was walking through the aftermath of an event like that, and stepping over the body of a young law student that I had hired to work for me for the summer," he says.
Heisse says neither he nor other survivors of that tragedy believe a gun could have stopped the carnage.

"These scenes don't play out like they do in the movies," he says. "It's incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish."

Again, the comments about "untrained" people carrying firearms.  If all these people are so untrained, why don't you have over 8 million (the estimated number of people with concealed carry permits) people being locked up for shooting the wrong people? 

Moms Demand Continues Theme of Domestic Violence to Push Gun Bans

Not deterred by the epic fail of their political ad using the issue of domestic violence to advocate gun bans, a representative of a Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action took to the editorial pages of the Richmond Times Dispatch last weekend.  In that Op/Ed, the writer used the same tired claim that women who arm themselves for self defense are more likely to be killed with that firearm.

When a woman gets a restraining order against a former intimate partner, she is clearly making every effort to “get away from him.” When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense.

What we do know is that a restraining order is just a piece of paper that has very little affect on an individual who is banging on the front door attempting to get in and do harm.  Call 911 is just as ineffective.  Purchasing and being trained to use a firearm for self-defense will be more effective than either of the other two choices.  When you lose the women who host ABC's The View on this issue, you are probably on the wrong side.

VSSA Training Team Offering Free Training to Virginia Teachers

Beginning July 1, 2013, the VSSA Training Team will offer free NRA certified pistol training to any teacher in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This training meets all the requirements for a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) in Virginia.  You can come to the team in Fairfax, or they can set something up with a local range where you are.  All you need is access to a range and a classroom.  Everything else will be provided.  Contact our training team lead, Tom Ciarula at Tom-C@Cox.net to make arrangements.

Arming Law-abiding Citizens in Mid-high Crime Areas

While attending the NRA-ILA Grassroots Seminar this morning I met Kyle Coplen with the Armed Citizen Project.  He and his partner are here promoting the Armed Citizen Project, a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to training and arming residents in mid-high crime areas with defensive shotguns, for free.  The post card that they were distributing notes:

In training and arming law-abiding residents, we are saturating neighborhoods with defensive weapons, and measuring the effect that a heavily armed society has on crime rates.

They began here in Houston but are planning to expand into Northern Virginia.  They look for participation in the community and the more responses they receive, the greater the likelihood that a neighborhood will be chosen.  Neighborhoods that are interested in participating can visit their web sight and fill out the form at ArmedCitizenProject.org.

Participants must be able to pass a background check, be a homeowner in the area and pass the organization's legal, safety, and tactical training.

Thankfully a Happy Ending for the Home Owner in This Home Invasion

NBC 12 reports that a Prince Edward County man shot two of three criminals that broke into his home earlier today.  The two died at the scene and the third individual is still at large.  The home owner and is two year-old son were unharmed.

NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News, Weather, Traffic

New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Have Positive View of NRA, Self Defense Laws - #NRAAM

The NY Daily News reported yesterday that a new poll shows a majority of Americans not only have positive view of the National Rifle Association, they also have a positive view of self defense laws that allow "deadly force" to protect your self and your family.

The Reuters/Ipsos survey, released Friday, shows 68% of respondents back the powerful, pro-gun rights lobbying group. There was a division among party lines with 82% of GOPers seeing the NRA in a positive light, versus 55% of Democrats.

The poll also showed that a whopping 87% of surveyed also support self defense laws.  A large number of the respondents, 87%, said they don't believe police could stop all crime and 77% belive "regular" people had to "step up" to prevent crime.

To show just how unimformed average Americans, or possibly the pollsters who created the questions, are when it comes to current gun laws, the poll also asked those surveyed if they support a law limiting "automatic weapons."  There already is a law the limits the sale of automatice weapons.  So, one has to ask, is the the typical media (since Reuters commissioned the poll) tactic of confusing semi automatic firearms with automatic firearms?

Mark Levin's Response to Bloomberg's Attack on Self Defense Laws

On the eve of the start of the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference to attack the nation's self defense laws, and to chastise the NRA for working to protect and expand those laws.  Bloomberg said "stand your ground" laws don't belong in a civilized society and that such laws are simply a "license to kill." Sounds like Bloomberg has seen one to many James Bond movies.

 Last night, during his program, talk show host Mark Levin addressed Bloomberg's remarks and set the record straight - that these self defense laws make it clear you are not obligated to simply run to escape an attack and you have the right to defend yourself and your family if attacked.

Justifiable Shootings in Virginia, Nation, Increase

This morning the Richmond Times Dispatch ran this front page article detailing how the number of justifiable shootings by both police and the general public have steadily increased over the last decade not only in Virginia, but nationally as well.  The article noted while there are no definitive answers to what is causing more law-enforcement officers and individuals to use deadly force in dealing with crime, criminologists interviewed as part of the story attributed the increase to the changes in laws allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.

"It's never been easier to be armed, and the laws of self-defense have never favored private individuals as much as they do now," said Jay Albanese, a criminologist and a professor of criminal justice studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. "So if you combine those two, you're likely to get more people shooting in self-defense, or at least believing they're in self-defense.

Without saying so, Albanese seems to believes that just because someone is lawfully carrying for self-defense, they are more likely to use the firearm.  However the fact is that a large number of gun owners who use their firearm to stop a crime never have to fire a shot. 

The article also noted that the increase in shootings by police may also reflect changing attitudes on the streets, where officers have felt more threatened by well-armed offenders, analysts say. The number of officers killed in the line of duty rose 26 percent from 2002 to 2007, then fell two consecutive years before  increasing again in 2010. So far for 2011 the number of officers killed in the line of duty is up 4 percent through May 1.


By the end of the article it had descended into the usual drivel about the greater ease of owning firearms insures that people who should not have them do. Another VCU criminal justice professor, John D. Reitzel, said he believed the changes in laws in a number of states has changed the way the public and prosecutors look at what constitutes justifiable lethal force and has played a role in the rising numbers.

"You used to have to flee if you were in danger," Reitzel said. "Now you can fight back, and that's not even necessarily on your own property. We're talking about being out in public." ..."To a certain degree, if you're allowing people to carry (weapons) in these places, essentially you're almost expecting them to use it."

While I don't know that Reitzel is against allowing lawful firearm owners to carry openly or concealed, his comments are typical of those you hear from the anti-rights crowd.  It's that mentality that people who have a firearm are just looking for any excuse to use it. 

Alfred Blumstein, a Carnegie Mellon University criminologist, said that people who are mentally said a greater availability of guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them may causing more of the law abiding to respond with "firepower."

"I suspect that it's a greater presence of people who represent a serious threat to people who have guns themselves, and respond with that," Blumstein said. "You're seeing more people with guns who are going to deal with a situation with firepower, than that they might have otherwise dealt with by talking the guy down."

Talking the guy down?  You would think that in such a long article (one that started above the fold on the front page and covered an entire page in the middle front section), that they would have interviewed at least one lawful gun owner who might even carry concealed.  Maybe then they would have given the other side of the story - the one that goes beyond the numbers and understands that we carry because ultimately, we are responsible for our own safety and the safety of our families.

89 Year-old Man in Stafford Nabs Scam Artists

The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star reports this morning that an 89 year-old man nabbed four out-of-state thugs who had been running a scam. In a "Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me" moment, the four had hoodwinked the Stafford County man once before in one of those driveway sealing scams. Not content with the first hoax, they came back for a second time. The victim had been coaxed into coming outside to discuss another job, while the other three went in the house and began looking for things to pilfer. When the man re-entered the home he found the three going through his things and trying to steal a safe.

During a scuffle, they pushed the man around and eventually knocked him to the floor. He then reached under his mattress and pulled out a handgun according to the county Sheriff. The perps taunted him even while having the gun pointed at them, but they left.

The man gave a description to the Sheriff's office and they found the suspects who were identified as Christopher A. Yoanis, 21, of Philadelphia; Larry L. Frank, 33, of Charlotte, N.C.; Alex Yoanis, 65, of Charlotte; and John J. Frank, 36, of Margate, Fla.

Gun Owner Defends Self in Norfolk Hotel.

On Thursday, a gun owner and concealed handgun permit holder staying in a Norfolk Econo Lodge had to defend himself when three criminals stormed into the room.

Wavy TV 10 reported Friday that the police said two of the suspects were shot by the victim. One of the suspects, 22-year-old Dante Cooley of Virginia Beach, died at the scene. The other suspect, 20-year-old Trevor Pauley of Norfolk, was transported to a local hospital where he died Friday afternoon.

The third suspect fled the scene and as of Friday remained on the run.