MI: Clerk Shoot Man Attacking Customers

Detroit — A man who attacked at least two men at a gas station Thursday was shot by the clerk,police said.

(snip)

 During the assault, the clerk shot the man. He was taken to a hospital for treatment. His condition was not known as of Thursday afternoon.


More Here

Gun Free Zones are Designed to Spread, Like Smallpox

The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who do not think about the issue.

Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*” . This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Havn’t we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)

Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.

The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legally dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.
Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens; fear the strength that they gain from carrying guns and the independent mindset that it fosters.

Liberal fascism, all that is left of what was  "progressivism",  is based on lies, derives its power from lies, and cannot exist when its lies are exposed.

 by Dean Weingarten (edited and updated from a comment on a forum in 2011)

 Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.Link to Gun Watch 

Two Models of Modern Murder

There are two models of modern murder that are used in the debate about how to deal with crime.   The assumptions about reality that the models are based on are significantly different, which results in consistently different prescriptions for public policy.

The first model, which I call the "Progressive Elite" model, has these basic assumptions about criminal homicide and its causes:

1.  The majority of people, except for the exceptional elite, are just moments away from committing a criminal homicide.  They have poor impulse control and fly into rages which escalate into homicidal rages if a weapon happens to be present.  For this reason, only  those in the elite, who have become experts in government through the attainment of public office, employment by police agencies, or attendance at ivy league schools, should be allowed access to weapons that might be used when these uncontrollable, emotional fits, strike.  Just a few months ago, it was reasonably summarized by  David Frum at thedailybeast:

Most gun casualties occur in the course of quarrels and accidents between people who would be described as “law-abiding, responsible gun owners” up until the moment when they lost their temper or left a weapon where a 4-year-old could find it and kill himself or his sister.

2.  The second model, which I call the "Trust the People" model, holds that the vast majority of criminal homicides are committed by a tiny fraction of society, that they are easily identified by their past history of violence, cultural set, and lack of civilized values and discipline instilled by a stable home life.

John Lott notes that it is the second model that has triumphed:

Actually, as I showed in More Guns, Less Crime, about 90 percent of adult murderers have a violent criminal record. About 89 percent of juvenile murderers have a criminal record for serious crimes.

-- In 2010, there were 36 accidental deaths involving kids under age 10. Most of those children were also shot by adults with criminal records. Accidental deaths are very small portion of total gun deaths. You can look up the data for other ages or all ages here (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe). Note that "unintentional" means "accidental." If you want to look up other issues there, please note that the CDC measures homicides differently than the FBI.

Lott is joined with a well known academic from Harvard, David Kennedy:

A very short summation of David Kennedy's finding about urban violence is quoted  below from the nhregister:

While homicides result from a variety of factors, the vast majority are committed by a small, violent and often gang-affiliated segment of society. 

"We're dealing with a tiny distinct, population in the city, and that tiny distinct population of gangs that drives the worst violence can be quiet. But it often doesn't take much to get it going," Kennedy said.

Kennedy agrees that most criminal homicide is committed by a small group of offenders with a past history of violence. He also shows that the violence can be significantly reduced by community and police focusing on this small group.   To be fair to Mr. Kennedy, whose work I admire, he has noted that his efforts may not have much effect on domestic violence, though I do not have a link to that comment.  Here is a link to a David Kennedy interview that gives a good summation of his approach to reducing criminal homicides:

David Kennedy: Innovating New Approaches to Justice (Part II)

The two models of modern murder are, at the core, reflections of a larger split in basic assumptions noted by Thomas Jefferson:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."

 --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73


 While the "Progressive Elite" model for criminal homicide has been discredited, it still has significant effects in critical institutions.    The FBI Uniform Crime Report was created as part of the progressive movement, and it reflects its origins in its extremely limited definition of justifiable homicide.    From the UCR Handbook:

NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

The following scenario illustrates an incident known to law enforcement that reporting agencies would not consider Justifiable Homicide:

17. While playing cards, two men got into an argument. The first man attacked the second with a broken bottle. The second man pulled a gun and killed his attacker. The police arrested the shooter; he claimed self-defense.

 The scenario quoted is a virtual shorthand for the Progressive Elite model.    The UCR even goes so far as to direct reporting agencies *not* to take into account the findings of coroners, prosecutors, grand juries or courts about whether a homicide is justifiable or not; only the FBI's extremely limited definition is to be used.

This  explains much of why the UCR  reports only a fraction of justifiable homicides in the United States.  They simply define the rest out of existence,  which naturally flows from the cognitive model used.  If homicides occur from a emotional quarrel, with no one really at fault, then justification becomes moot. 

Gary Kleck shows that between 5.6 and 13% of reported homicides are justifiable homicides by citizens who are not police. 

The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through their Supplementary Homicides Reports program in their 1991 issue. For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides.

I have not found any work that refutes these findings.  Those who cling to the Progressive Elite model simply state the FBI numbers as fact.

In 2010, the UCR reported 278 justifiable homicides which are only 1.9 percent of  the total criminal homicides (14,748) reported.

A corollary result of the "Progressive Elite" model is puzzlement at the fall of general crime rates coincident with the rise in justifiable homicides.   If justifiable homicides are simply excused criminal homicides, then they should rise and fall with the homicide rate generally.

According to the "Trust the People" model, justified homicides reduce the very small number of violent people likely to commit criminal homicide, thus directly lowering the number of homicides in the future.

 The "Trust the People" model is gaining credibility and respect. It is the basis for the victory of the shall issue permit model, and the growing number of "constitutional carry" states where no permit is required.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch 

“CASTLE” DEFENSE: WHAT CAN–MAY–SHOULD–MUST YOU DO

A concise, well put together discussion of the use of deadly force against home invaders and the castle doctrine.  Go to modernserviceweapons.com for the entire article:

Those who “sleep peaceably” in their bed must on occasion (and really short notice) rise to become “rough men ready to do violence” in defense of their castle.  (Hat tip to George Orwell).  Home invasion is perhaps the most frightening and dangerous of all violent crimes (it is committed out of public sight usually without fixed time/escape constraints and innocent occupants, often women and children, are rarely able to flee).  It is becoming somewhat commonplace during daylight hours and at night in both urban and rural neighborhoods.  Examples include two of the most horrific in memory, from Florida, (here) and (video here), one from Connecticut (here), one from Maine, an old one (here), and recent ones which ended in the death of  a home invader (here) and (here), other recent ones, also very ugly, (here) and (here), and a routinely reported compilation of many in California (here).  Finally, who can forget the single home invader who, for no apparent reason, brutally beat a New Jersey mother (video here) in front of her infant child? The spine chilling, heartbreaking details of these incidents provide good reality based scenarios for family drills training.

A home invasion commonly involves multiple malefactors who either didn’t anticipate the presence of occupant(s) when committing a residential burglary, or simply don’t care if the premises are occupied, because they have included in their criminal repertoire threatening deadly force or doing actual bodily harm, regardless of victim acquiescence.  Home invaders often have violent criminal pasts, impersonate law enforcement, and carry weapons.   Even if they enter unarmed, they easily find edged and impact weapons and other items (see above photo), which they can use to disable or restrain occupants or inflict lethal injury or great bodily harm.  (Spoiler: Restraint of or forcing occupants into another room against their will likely constitutes an independent crime of false imprisonment, kidnapping, or other felony to which deadly force is ordinarily the indicated and lawful response).

 Read more here at modernserviceweapons.com

Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds End to 'Hiding in Plain Sight' (open carry)

While this article is nearly a month old, it is very well written, and gives all the history and arguments in an easily understood format.

A recent decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court may finally have laid to rest the state's status as home to one of the nation's most rigidly interpreted concealed weapons laws, as well as ending one of the oddest recent episodes of gun-related litigation in the US.

At the beginning of 2013, Mississippi—like most states—prohibited the carrying of handguns and certain other weapons concealed without a permit. 

However, unlike any other state's "concealed" carry statute, Mississippi's statute prohibited carrying a weapon concealed "in whole or in part," a provision that had been read absolutely literally since the Mississippi Supreme Court's 1908 decision in Martin v. State. Under Mississippi law, as Attorney General Jim Hood noted in a 2012 opinion, the law prohibited concealing any part of a weapon whatsoever.


More Here at  jurist.org    

WI:Man Uses Gun to Expel Burglars

GREEN BAY, Wisc. (WFRV) A Green Bay man credits his handgun for keeping him safe in an attempted burglary overnight.

The homeowner in the 600 block of Laura Street told Local 5 that around 3:30am Wednesday, he woke up to loud noises coming from his kitchen. The man quickly grabbed his handgun from underneath his pillow and approached the burglars.

More Here

Excellent Intell in Advance of the San Antonio Open Carry Event

This is a very interesting bit of intellegence regarding the preparations for the coming open carry event planned for SanAntonio, Texas on 19 October, 2013.  Please give a click to Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars  the source of this article.  I only reproduce it here in full in order to spread the word.

 

 "Katy bar the door if I’m wrong." Interesting information on San Antonio Police Department preparations for the 19 October event.

I will be heading to San Antonio on Thursday and expect to arrive there early Friday afternoon for the Come and Take It San Antonio rally.

I received the communication below from a reader and it reveals some interesting information on the police preparations on the part of SAPD. It also reveals the Achilles' Heel of their plans. In any case, I'm going. Hope to see you there. (And for anyone who's not going but wishes they could, let me shamelessly rattle my tin cup for some gas money to get there.) I don't believe that bail money (or ER co-pay) will be required, but you never can tell. It's all up to the obtuse collectivists running San Antonio. ;-) -- Mike

Mike,

I follow your blog daily. While I do not agree with everything, most of your analysis unfortunately is spot on. Thanks for your diligence in informing those of us who still care.

I am writing to let you know some information concerning the upcoming Open Carry Event in San Antonio.

This event will take place in my backyard so in preparation to attend I was doing a little research and found some information that may be of interest to all attendees. To give some framework to my concerns, I am an ex-SAPD officer and as such have contacts whom I questioned in regard to likely actions by SAPD during this event.

While I was not totally stunned, I was dismayed to find that the department higher ups were actually formulating a vigorous response to this event. Given the worthless liberal, camera seeking clown of a police chief I suppose this was to be anticipated.

I was informed that patrol officers attending in-service training courses and other meetings/roll calls have been informed that department heads (i.e. Knickers in a bunch Chief McManus) have determined that officers will be told/ordered to make arrests for disorderly conduct. Their reasoning/justification? Any citizens wishing to set up a confrontation with the police by open carrying a rifle will be considered to be acting in a manner contrary to the public peace and good order. Apparently officers no longer have the internal fortitude to see a firearm in the hands of legal citizens (sarcasm). Not a particularly well thought out legal premise considering it is entirely legal under state law to carry openly (cities cannot pass/enforce any ordinances which contradict state law) and particularly of concern is that the police officials/legal counsel are pre-constructing their own “probable cause” (quoted from source) for justification prior to even observing any law breaking conduct. The only applicable city ordinance for our consideration is that the firearms cannot be loaded within city limits. When outside city limits the firearms can be carried loaded without permit, etc. and many cities respect their citizens enough to not even pass an ordinance banning loaded firearms within their jurisdiction. State law 42.01 Disorderly Conduct (8) states an offense is committed only when a person displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm; so the act of carrying without intent to alarm is not unlawful, despite the implication made by SAPD, the misguided sergeant, who had his officers issue misdemeanor citations to the Open Carry advocates at the local Starbucks (re: You tube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN0GcahEvIc)

Several interesting points need to be considered here. Many people do not know that the city of San Antonio is self insured. Let’s say that again, San Antonio is a self insured city, meaning they have to defend personally against all lawsuits themselves and must pay out of their own pocket/city budget for the unlawful screw-ups of their employees. Police officers screwing the public have cost them dearly in the past. One of the reasons I write this is to put this information out prior to the event so that any one arrested illegally will have recourse in the courts and the information to make it stick. Taking a lawsuit settlement from the city of San Antonio, when wronged by city employees, tends to piss off voters and politicians alike (particularly those politicians like the current mayor who is more interested in buying voters and influence to further his/their agenda and careers).

Another point of interest; based on this information that the SAPD will not be enforcing state laws or city ordinance but that of internal ego generated policy it will allow for a lawsuit against individual officers and the entire chain of command individually as well as the city who failed to properly train, supervise, etc.. Police department “special orders” require officers to not “shirk” their legal duties and also it is clear both by law and policy that any individual officer making an arrest of this nature must act as the chief complainant so the burden for evidence is based on the arresting officers testimony. This is entirely negated when, as I will do and expect others to also do, the arrest incident is videotaped and publicly posted. Cockroaches, in any uniform and any rank, hate the light of truth.

The regular patrol officers here in San Antonio, are in the main, professional in conduct. Interestingly, the department has had several incidents, not publicly discussed, where a lower ranking officer has declined, anywhere from respectfully declining to full outright indignant “stick where the sun don’t shine” refusal, to act against an individual citizen when so ordered to do so by a higher ranking officer (Sgt/Lt/etc.). Patrol officers are allowed, under law and legal process, complete and full discretion in whether or not to make an arrest. The arresting officer makes the written report and has to do the testifying regarding their lawful actions (or otherwise). Many officers have realized that the answer is simple to the quandary of an ordered arrest, if they disagree then they simply tell that superior ranking officer that they are also commissioned police officers granted under city charter and certified by Texas Standards TECLOSE (MBV note: Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education) and that if they believe “they” have witnessed a crime then they are “shirking” their duty if they do not make the arrest. Needless to say most overbearing superiors decline to follow through and settle with threatening and internally trying to punish the subordinate for “insubordination”. While I cannot say that it wouldn’t work today, in my time it was an epic mistake to screw with the regular troops when they were comporting themselves both legally and ethically. Most street officers will act with professionalism and exercise discretion. Those with true leadership in the command ranks will also support the lawful actions of the officers under their supervision/command. On the other hand there will be those politically correct/oriented types with their noses buried to the hilt up the backside of higher ranking officers as well as the Rambo-type “Only Ones” whose ego will not be denied, who will deny their own responsibility and act contrary to the constitution and state law.

I could go on about how to handle oneself while at this event but the best advice I have is to just be a true American citizen exercising your constitutionally and state recognized rights. Be respectful but insist on respect in return. I personally have a couple of plans that may be invoked to expose any illegalities performed by any SAPD officer, Park Ranger, etc. but I sincerely hope that sanity will prevail, no bond money or lawyers will be needed. More than anything I want you to witness that true professional law enforcement exists in Texas, in other words, peaceful, lawful assembly fully respected by government officials/agents. Katy bar the door if I’m wrong.

Sincerely look forward to meeting/seeing you here in SA.

SIGNATURE REDACTED

LATER: I sent a copy of this to the Mayor and City Council of San Antonio with the note: "Posted on my blog this morning. And, I might add, we're seeking some adult supervision and cool heads in the SAPD."

Mike Vanderboegh

 Source: Sipsey Street Irregulars

NV:Armed Neighbor Saves Wife who was shot by her Estranged Husband

The preliminary investigation indicates the husband and wife were separated. The woman went to her former home to exchange some sort of property.

A dispute erupted and the husband shot the wife. She made it into the front yard before collapsing.

A neighbor, armed with a handgun, rescued the woman from the yard and moved her to safety.

 More Here

MI (2012):Justifiable homicides under reported to FBI in Saginaw County and statewide

This report from 2012 confirms the Gary Kleck paper that the Uniform Crime Reports understate justifiable homicides by a factor of from 4 to 8.  To put it another way, justifiable homicides are likely four to eight times more frequent than reported by the FBI.  This is easily understood when you read the extremely restrictive definition of a justifiable homicide in the UCR.

There were five justifiable homicides in Saginaw from 2000 to 2010, though the Federal Bureau of Investigation only knows that one of those cases was justifiable.

The killing is one of 117 civilian justifiable homicides that took place from 2000 to 2010 in Michigan, according to FBI statistics, though an MLive investigation has shown those numbers are incomplete.

Saginaw Police Department Detective Sgt. Joseph Dutoi said the agency reports to the state whenever there is a homicide, and the department is supposed to file another report when the homicides are determined to be justified.

 More Here

NH:Company seems to shoot self in foot by firing armed employee

One way or the other, we suspect life is about to change for the man who brought a firearm to his job at a Shell convenience store in Nashua over the holiday weekend. 

It turns out that Shannon “Bear” Cothran used his legally-concealed handgun to scare off a would-be robber who entered the store at 301 Main St. early Monday morning, threatened Cothran with a knife and told him to empty the cash register.

 The bandit fled the store when Cothran pulled out his gun, a Ruger LCP 380 handgun.

It kind of reminds us of the “you-call-that-a-knife” scene in the movie “Crocodile Dundee,” but what happened next is not funny, even if it does turn Cothran into something of a celebrity among gun-rights activists. 

His employer for the past 10 years, Nouria Energy, fired him for bringing a gun to work.

We wouldn’t encourage convenience store clerks and those who work at Dunkin’ Donuts and other establishments targeted by robbers to bring guns to work. But we can understand why those who work the night shift, especially, might at least think about it, given the frequency with which holdups have happened in the region recently.

More Here at the nashuatelepraph.com

OK:Homeowner Shoot Intruder, Intruder dives out of Second Floor Window

 The burglar may have been armed.  An earlier report says that the police found a gun in the front yard.

"I quickly noticed someone standing in the entrance way to my bedroom. I just simply reacted, finger went on the trigger, clicked off the safety and I shot him three times," Sweeny told FOX23's Dontaye Carter.

Sweeny walked the news station around his home to show me how the man, police are not identifying, escaped.

"He made his escape by pushing my window unit out the window," He said. "Taking a 12-foot high dive out my bedroom window."

 More Here

Number of Montanans with concealed weapon permits doubles (Since 2008)

BOZEMAN — The number of Montana residents with concealed weapons permits has more than doubled since 2008.

The Montana Department of Justice says that about 38,000 people have concealed weapons permits as of Oct. 5. That's up from about 18,000 in 2008.

More Here

GROUPS JOINTLY SPONSOR ‘GUNS SAVE LIVES DAY’ ON BILL OF RIGHTS DAY SUNDAY DEC. 15 2013

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation and DefendGunRights.com announced today they will join together with other groups to sponsor Guns Save Lives Day on Dec. 15 2013, the day after the anniversary of the tragic Newtown, Conn., shootings “because crazy people, criminals and gun control extremists prefer unarmed victims.”

“We are proclaiming Sunday, Dec. 15 as Guns Save Lives Day,” said Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee. “In the coming weeks, you can go to GunsSaveLivesDay.com and get updates on this open source national project that all freedom loving organizations are invited to be a part of.”

In addition, GunsSaveLivesDay.com has an on-line petition for individuals to sign in support of the fundamental right to own a firearm for self-defense. There will be events and activities in all 50 states to counter the anticipated push by the gun prohibition lobby to exploit the anniversary of the Newtown tragedy to push their political agenda.

Guns Save Lives Day was initially planned for December 14th, the day the gun prohibition lobby is planning to exploit the Newtown tragedy to further their anti-firearms civil rights political agenda. “In moving the event back one day to Bill of Rights Day we challenge the gun prohibition lobby to drop their plans to further continue their exploitation and politicization of this horrific tragedy,” Gottlieb added.

“The event is designed to counteract what certainly will be a day of activism and misinformation from the gun prohibition lobby,” noted Larry Ward, founder of DefendGunRights.com. “We wanted to ensure that the public has the facts on gun rights and understand how many Americans stand with them in defense of Second Amendment rights.”

“Americans are concerned about attempts to erode their gun ownership rights, and for good reason,” Gottlieb said. “Our mission with Guns Save Lives Day is to assure them our groups are working day and night to thwart government gun-grabbers at every opportunity. We are going to show America that there is a good side to guns.”

“The Founders understood what many modern-day politicians do not: that Americans are safer – from crime and tyranny – when they have the means to defend themselves,” Ward added.

Americans protect themselves from violent crime with firearms up to two million times annually, by some estimates. Nearly half of those incidents occur away from home, demonstrating the effectiveness of concealed- and open-carry laws. In the majority of those cases, a shot is not even fired, but the presence of the firearm serves as a deterrent to violence.

“No one at Newtown should have been a victim,” Gottlieb said, “and no one in the future should be victimized by laws that do not allow people to defend themselves.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Source: The Gun Mag

Revised Minnesota Murder/Manslaughter Rates

The criminal homicide rate for the general population has been added to more accurately compare to the murder plus manslaughter rate for those with a Minnesota carry permit.

Minnesota is one of a few states that track crimes committed by Concealed Carry permit holders.  When the Minnesota law was passed, an annual report of crimes committed by permit holders was required.  The Minnesota permit is simply a permit to carry, the law does not discriminate between carrying concealed and carrying openly.  Reports for the law are available for 2003, and 2005-2012 in pdf files.  

The number of people with Minnesota permits that commit murder or manslaughter is remarkably low.  Only three instances are recorded in the Minnesota Carry Permit annual reports for the nine years reported.

From the reports, the numbers of valid permits for each year are as follows:

2003 - 15,677

2005 - 32,885

2006 - 42,189

2007 - 51,347

2008 - 56,919

2009 - 69,313

2010 - 79,180

2011 - 91,221

2012 - 114,793

Total for the years listed - 553,524

Rate of carry permit holders committing murder and manslaughter/100,000 per year, .542.

Rate of murder in the general population in Minnesota, per 100,000 averaged for the years 2003, 2005 - 2012, is 1.78.

Update: Due to an alert reader, I have found a discrepancy in the comparative figures.  The change is not large, but it is real.    The rates given for the general population are labelled as murder, not murder and manslaughter.   I was able to access official Minnesota crime book pdf files ,  which gives the numbers of criminal homicides, defined there as:

Criminal homicide involves those offenses of murder
and non-negligent homicide that are classified as
willful felonious deaths as distinguished from deaths
caused by negligence. “Attempts to kill” are scored as
aggravated assaults and not as murder. Justifiable or
excusable homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and
deaths due to negligence are not tabulated in the state
homicide total.

It appears that this number would be equivalent to the aggregate of murders and manslaughters, as it eliminates deaths due to negligence.

Using these numbers and population estimates from this source, plus the population estimate for 2012 from wikipedia, I calculated the rate of criminal homicide for the general population in Minnesota, per 100,000.    Averaged for the years 2003, 2005 - 2012, it is  1.97, which is about 10% higher than the rate for murder alone.

The rate tabulated previously for murder was 1.78.  The rate for criminal homicide has been calculated at 1.97, which should be a fair comparison to the murder plus manslaughter rate shown for Minnesota carry permit holders.


©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX:Armed Man Repels Burglars

The Sheriff did not return phone calls, so details are scarce. At this point, we know two burglars tried to break into a home Saturday just outside Rockport City limits. Sources say the homeowner shot at the burglars, but its not clear if they were hit.

More Here

OH:Home Invader to be taken off Life Support

Sad that Keith Richards chose a life of crime.  It is often a very dangerous and short career.


Portsmouth Police say Keith Richards, 31, of Portsmouth, received life threatening injuries after being shot by a family member of the deceased homeowner. Family members say Richards was shot while crawling through a back window.

More Here

OK:Homeowner Shoots Intruder

I hope to find a follow up to this article.  I cannot determine if the intruder was armed or not...

The homeowner grabbed his handgun after finding a mess inside his house.   He's said to have fired multiple shots, hitting the unnamed suspect three times.

 More Here

Some Points on California's Ban on Traditional Ammunition

The good news: the ban does not extend to ammunition used for target shooting.

The bad news: It extends to more than traditional hunting.    The bill applies to the taking of all wildlife.  From the bill:

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (j), and as soon as is practicable as implemented by the commission pursuant to subdivision (i), but by no later than July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition, as determined by the commission, shall be required when taking all wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm.

There is no exemption for self defense, protection of crops, elimination of pests or any other "taking of wildlife" that firearms are traditionally used for.  If a person shoots a rabid coyote in their yard, or crows that are eating all the seed in the field that they just planted, they had better not be using  traditional ammunition in their firearm, or they will be subject to the penalties specified in the bill.

Did you notice that the bill established a commission to certify ammunition that is approved as non-lead?  Only certified ammunition will be legal for the taking of wildlife with a firearm.   The legislature could have simply made lead projectiles illegal for hunting with firearms.   The market would have produced non-lead ammunition in response to demand.    The creation of a commission that has to certify non-lead ammunition is just another expensive hoop that  manufacturers will have to jump through.  It is an impediment to legal hunting and ammunition innovation, and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

This is the type of legislation that statists seem to love.  It inverts the traditional approach to the law.  The traditional approach is that everything is legal unless it is prohibited.  The statist approach is that nothing is legal unless it is approved.


Government officials and their agents are exempted.   The bill tells us that using lead ammunition  to take wildlife is bad.  Really bad.  Then it says it is only bad if done by people who are not government agents, so there is no problem for government hunters to take game with lead ammunition.   Why?  Because "Shut up"!

There is a laughable provision in the bill that allows people to use lead ammunition in calibers for which no non-lead ammunition has been certified.
 The exemption only applies if non-lead ammunition is not available because of a federal ban on armor piercing ammunition, and then only if  the director certifies that it is so.  My political sense says that provision will never be used while there is Democrat control of California.

The bill only applies to firearms, but what is a firearm by legal definition in California?  There are often several different definitions in a body of law, some of which may apply in some areas, but not in others.  Here is what I found, but I am not a lawyer, so there may be other definitions that apply for the taking of wildlife.

California definition of a firearm.

It is clear that airguns are not firearms.   I expect that airguns will become more popular and that bills will be introduced to define them as firearms.

Muzzleloaders appear to be in an ambiguous area.    I expect that there will be considerable lobbying for the commission to certify non-lead projectiles as ammunition.  This would allow them to be used in muzzle-loaders and  by reloaders.

Fines are rather high for the nebulous and highly controversial amount of "damage" done.    $500 for the first offense, $1,000 - $5,000 for later offences.

The bill contains a provision for coupons to be sent to people with "permits"  for hunting to offset the cost of non-lead ammunition.  It is only to go into effect if funding is available.   As California is broke, I expect that it is another dead letter.

This legislation will reduce the number of hunters in California, as those with marginal motivations will be deterred by the expense and additional legal risk.   
Poaching will likely increase.

Those who are cynical will say that was the real goal of this legislation.   I would argue that ignorance and stupidity can easily be mistaken for malice.   Then again, those motivations and explanations are not mutually exclusive.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

CA: 9th Circuit Hears Right to Carry Outside the Home Case

(CN) - Concerns that a limitation on concealed-carry permits in Orange County, Calif., amounts to an all-out ban did not seem to resonate with the 9th Circuit.

     A three-judge panel with the federal appeals court met this week to consider a 2012 lawsuit challenging Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchen's policy of "denying law-abiding, competent adults ... state-required licenses to carry handguns in public for the purpose of self-defense." The policy requires gun owners to prove to the sheriff that they have a valid reason to carry their gun for self defense.

     U.S. District Judge James Selna of Santa Ana had refused to issue an injunction in November after finding the claims unlikely to succeed because "California provides several exceptions to the restriction of concealed and open carry, including for self-defense and defense of the home."

     Sean Brady, an attorney for the plaintiffs with Michel & Associates, told the appellate panel that the sheriff's policy is a complete ban.

 More Here at Courthouse News Service

CA:Neighbor Shoots Pitbull Attacking Children

 One has to assume that the shooter used lead ammunition.   There does not appear to be any direct exemption for self defense in the lead ammunition ban for the taking of animals, but there is an out, because the dog can arguably be classified as a domestic animal instead of wildlife.

A pit bull attacked at least two children on a neighborhood street, wounding one, before someone fatally shot the dog Sunday afternoon, police said.

The dog got loose in the 2400 block of North Genevieve Street (map) and began attacking people about 2:40 p.m., a San Bernardino police lieutenant told NBC4.

The pit bull bit a child's thigh. Someone arrived with a gun and fatally shot the dog, the lieutenant said.

 More Here