Shortly after 7 a.m. Sunday morning, officers were called out to the intersection of SR 5 and Old Trail in Whitley County. The shooting victim was holding the shooter, 17 year old Dakota Kimbler at gunpoint.
The victim disarmed the attacker and held him for police
The men, who police estimate are between 18 and 27 years of age, walked into the restaurant at about 6:20 p.m. They pulled out a black .38 revolver and demanded money.
Instead, the manager went for the gun and took it from the gunman. At that point, the suspects ran away.
In October, the same Church’s restaurant was robbed by a man with a samurai sword.Click here for that story.
Surveillance video show what happened Sunday night:
The clinics will be held from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Bullseye Precision Indoor Shooting Range, 1281 Andersen Drive in San Rafael.
The $40 registration fee includes all the instruction materials and equipment, including the use of 22-caliber handguns, 50 rounds of ammunition, eye and ear protection, targets and range fees.
To register, call Mary Trudell at 383-3283 or marytrudellwot@yahoo.com.
The Cincinnati Enquirer (http://cin.ci/Vu93Up ) reports it happened early Monday at a Sunoco station north of the city.
The workers, who haven't been identified, said the robber came in at around 12:30 a.m., pointed a gun at them and demanded money.
Owasso Police responded to a shots fired at 4:41 P.M. Sunday. Officers discovered that a homeowner had shot a man who was apparently trying to break into his house.
Investigators discovered that the deceased, 38-year-old Edward Templeton, and the homeowner were acquaintances and had been involved in a verbal and physical altercation prior to the shooting incident.
Not so, the homeowner handled the situation with compassion, keeping the guy from endangering them and others. Any decent gun owner would say that's how it's done. But this is a logic that escapes people like Bob Costas, who glide among secure skyscrapers, never worrying about trivialities like home invasions. Commentators need no guns when the bodyguard is already packing. If only we all could be on TV with our shiny eyes and thoughtful grins, we wouldn't need guns, just opinions about them.
As I attempted to find out what the gun homicide rate for Switzerland was, I ran into a curious phenomena. The most commonly quoted figures for gun homicides were for both gun homicides and attempted gun homicides. In one source, this led to the startling conclusion that gun homicides for a given year were greater than total homicides. At the site gunpolicy.org, the total homicides for 2009 are listed as 51. The total gun homicides are listed as 55.
Though a little research, I found that what most writers are seeing is the composite figure for both attempted and fatal gun homicides. As the attempted gun homicides outnumber the fatal gun homicides, this has a large impact on the number of total gun homicides claimed and on the rate of firearm homicides claimed in Switzerland.
Because of the referendum on gun control held in 2010, figures were published giving the actual gun homicides for four years. These were 1998, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The number of attempted homicides with firearms was given for 2009.
Here are the numbers:
In 1998, 53 homicides with firearms for a rate of .75/100,000
In 2007 27 homicides with firearms for a rate of .35/100,000
In 2008, 20 homicides with firearms for a rate of .26/100,000
In 2009, 24 homicides with firearms for a rate of .31/100,000
In 2009 the number of attempted homicides with firearms was 31.
These are exceptionally low rates. They are lower than the rates of Australia and Canada, both of which have much more restrictive gun control schemes. They are slightly higher than France and Sweden, though the overall homicide rate (Which, after all, is the more important number) is slightly higher in those countries, again, with much more restrictive gun control.
Here are the quotes from the Heller decision:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
Here is the first half of paragraph 4 of part IV:
“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Here is the summation paragraph:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
This part of the Heller decision has not received the attention that it deserves. It effectively renders the current excuses given for infringing on the Second Amendment as a means of crime control, moot, dead, and buried. The modern fabric of misinformation designed to disarm the American people rests on a foundation that the purpose of the disarmament is to reduce crime. The vast majority of criminals obtain their firearms through theft, primarily by burglary. The guns are then distributed through the criminal distribution network, already robust from the drug war and street gangs.
The theory behind modern gun control is that if you make guns unavailable to most citizens, the criminal source of guns will dry up and you will have less guns used in crime.
Logically this theory fails on many other points, which I will not treat in this essay because of space limitation, but I will mention a few that each deserve articles of their own. These are, weapons substitution, home made guns, underground manufacturers, illegal importation, vast existing stockpiles, and the minimal number of firearms required for crime.
What the ruling in Heller does, is make it impossible to reduce the availability of guns to criminals by reducing the supply from citizens, because it accepts and recognizes the most basic and elemental of all natural rights, the right to life and by corollary, the right to self defense.
We now have a situation where the Supreme Court has ruled that the citizens have a constitutionally protected right to keep the 300 million plus existing firearms in their homes, loaded, unlocked, and ready for use in defense of self and others.
While this will undoubtedly assist in further reducing the crime rate, it also insures that criminals will have illegitimate access to the existing stock of firearms. These guns now are assured of being kept in the home... not in government armories as some anti-rights zealots have suggested. The citizens are assured of the right to keep them loaded, so ammunition will be available, not locked up separately as anti-freedom leaders have insisted. They cannot be required to be locked in mandatory safes as a means of keeping them out of criminal hands, because having them available for self defense is now a clearly recognized and constitutionally protected right.
Therefore, it is futile to attempt to restrict criminals access to firearms by restricting the citizens access to firearms. Citizens access to firearms is guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, and crime rates continue to fall.
I do not expect this elemental logic to convert many anti-freedom zealots. Their visceral hatred of an armed citizenry was never really about disarming criminals in the first place. However, there are many people who have simply accepted the anti-freedom propaganda without much thought. They may find this argument persuasive.
Posts
All Comments
