Jacksonville FL - Crown Jewel of the Sunshine State

First Coast News reports on the latest action in Jacksonville FL.


Eyewitnesses told police that Richardson, 20, and Billy Lorenzo Johnson, 31, arrived together at 1324 Prince Street around 4:30 p.m. and soon thereafter got into a physical confrontation with 26-year-old Kenneth E. Curry.
Police believe Richardson pulled a handgun, then so did Curry, and they began shooting at each other.
During the shooting, 19-year-old Danielle Dominique Melton and a toddler, Marc Smith, were shot, as was Johnson. Another person reported that Richardson fired into her apartment.

Just a couple days earlier this happened.

Ten people were wounded and an unborn child died in a hail of bullets in a neighborhood shooting near Riverside just before 9 p.m. The pregnant mother lost her 29-week unborn boy and an 18-month-old girl was in critical condition after the gunfire.
Six of the victims were women and three were men, all unidentified. A male victim remained at Shands Jacksonville hospital Monday.
Police were looking for at least two shooters Monday and did not say if they knew of a motive. No suspects have been identified.

One of the first things that comes to mind is the pro-gun argument that guns are not the problem. They say violent people are the problem and they always say that as if we don't agree with it. We do agree. We understand perfectly well that there are bad guys who do bad things and the gun does not make them do anything.

The problem is gun availability, and that's where the pro-gun guys themselves come into it. They are the source of the guns used in crime. They'll scream and yell and twist and lie and do everything possible to obscure that fact, but if you think about it, it's clear these guns used in Jacksonville shootings were not manufactured in some gang member's basement. They started out lawfully owned and somehow were allowed to flow into the criminal world.

In their enthusiasm to deny all responsibility for this problem, as a type of distraction, we often hear the ridiculous proposition that even if we removed all the guns, these violent criminals would use other weapons to do the same thing.

I wonder how that would have worked in Jacksonville. Would as many people have been wounded and killed if no guns had been used? That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer.

Florida continues to wear the crown and Jacksonville is one of its most precious jewels.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



When Seconds Count

Akron.com provides a step-by-step account of the movements of the killer. Basically, as we've been reading all week, he went from bouse to house, through backyards, even chasing one victim into a neighbor's house in order to execute him, an 11-year-old.

Hance was killed by a Copley police officer, Mier said, about 10 minutes after the first 9-1-1 call was received.

What that means is the murderous rampage lasted at least 11 minutes, presuming the first call took place some seconds after the first shot. Where were all the armed neighbors?  Where were all the local CCW guys?

How many times have we heard that flippant remark, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."  This infers that in places like Ohio where many homes have guns and the percentage of concealed carry permits is high, we don't have to wait for the police to put a stop to things like this.

Yet, as we saw in Arizona a few months ago, this is just not the case.  As with the Loughner shooting, it's a safe bet that gunowners were on hand but they turned out to be powerless to stop the onslaught of violence.

Why, I don't know, probably several reasons, but I have one theory.  The vast majority of gun owners, even concealed carry guys, are not trained for this kind of intervention.  They may think they are, but when the SHTF, as they like to say on The Truth Abough Guns, they're not up to the task.  It takes quick decisive action to intervene, and courage, knowing that getting involved, you go from being a neutral spectator to a potential target.

Most people are frozen with fear during those critical seconds or minutes. Their owning guns does nothing more than make them feel safe, and of course, increase the chances of gun mishaps of many kinds.

What's your opinion?  It seems to me this story illustrates that altough the exemplary action of the police was not as swift as we'd like it to have been, it was pretty good.  And once again we count ourselves lucky that none of the local gun owners made it worse.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.



Arizona Senator Lori Klein - Proud Gun Owner

A New York Times op-ed by Frank Bruni

Tip sent in by Bruce

The dispute was this: Did a local lawmaker intentionally point her loaded .380 Ruger at a newspaper reporter during an interview, or was it all just a silly misunderstanding?
The reporter, Richard Ruelas, who writes for The Arizona Republic, said it was deliberate. Not hostile, mind you, but purposeful: State Senator Lori Klein was proudly showing off her piece. He told this story first in an article published Sunday in The Republic, repeated it in subsequent public comments and went through it one more time on the telephone with me. He sounded incredulous still.
He said that as he sat with Klein just outside the Senate chamber to discuss her gun-toting ways, “I looked down and saw a red dot on my chest.” He looked up and realized the dot was the laser sight of the Ruger, which she carries in her pocketbook. Although he wasn’t sure just then whether it had bullets in it, she informed him — after she’d lowered the pistol — that it always does.
The Republic article caused a public outcry that she had been reckless. Even Arizonans have their limits. She then disputed Ruelas’s account, saying that he had strayed into the gun’s sight as she demonstrated how it worked. After that she went silent.

The author goes on to bemoan the fact that "a cavalier attitude about guns persists and even flourishes" in spite of the recent high profile shooting in Arizona. He states that the Senator's pink gun is not cute and cannot be compared to Häagen-Dazs ice cream. But what in the world does Lori Klein and all the other lawful gun owners have to do with the criminal use of guns? Aren't they two completely separate things? That's what our gun-rights friends keep trying to say.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks. Let me explain.

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone. In the case of Jared Loughner, he himself was the legitimate and legal owner of the gun, as sad a fact as that is, given the terrible and tragic lack of mental health screening that exists. He bought the gun, and then used it in a crime.

But, the same is true for the inner city hoodlum who shoots a rival drug dealer in Newark. He may have bought the gun from another criminal, in fact his particular gun may have had several illegal owners before it was used in a murder. But if you could trace it back far enough, you would find a point at which it passed from the hand of its legitimate owner to that of a criminal.

This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws.

Of course, if I were writing those laws, Lori Klein would have to relinquish her guns immediately.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



How does that sound? Please leave a comment.



Illinois Gun Owner ID Publication Exemption Approved


The Illinois Observer reports


Governor Pat Quinn today quietly signed legislation that exempts Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification Card holders from the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, easing the fears in armed households around Illinois.
“As Governor, I have made increasing openness and transparency in government one of my top priorities,” said Quinn, who released the news Saturday afternoon. “…[H]owever, it should not come at the expense of the public’s safety.”


It's a fascinating discussion. Gun owners have long claimed that having a gun is a deterrent to crime. They ridicule gun control folks for their attempts to establish gun-free zones, claiming that criminals flock to such places to do their thing.

But, in Illinois, they mounted a tremendous and successful opposition to Attorney General Lisa Madigan's attempt to make public the list of FOID cardholders. Does that make sense? Wouldn't burglars and home invaders avoid the addresses where gun owners live in favor of those unarmed sitting ducks?

What could be the reason behind this? I would think if the reason for having guns in the first place is for personal protection, there'd be no better way than to advertise the fact.

One interesting result, I'm sure it's not their chief motivation, is that when those burglars and home invaders do come in, gun owners can have the element of surprise, all the easier to blow the bad guys away in the dark.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.


Wisconsin Concealed Carry Confusion

Yahoo News published a wonderful article by Joshua Huffman (not to be confused with Joe Huffman because Joshua sounds quite reasonable).

Fortunately, Lambeau Field officials will have ample time to interpret the law for the new Wisconsin concealed gun law that should be passed this October. Green Bay police aren't aware of how the law impacts their ability to prevent fans from entering the stadium with a handgun.

The NFL prohibits fans from carrying guns into any stadium. However, they could be prohibited from enforcing their own policy on Lambeau Field. The NFL doesn't own the stadium, therefore can't impose their anti-gun policy. Pat Webb, the stadium's executive director, stated, "I don't know enough about Wisconsin's specific law to know if the stadiums are exempt or not or can be exempt."

I wouldn't be comfortable with people carrying guns in an environment of 50,000 people or greater. Post-game driving is hardly safe with the alcohol that's consumed at these sporting events. It only takes one person to create a chaotic scene. I'd be worried about someone trying to pry the gun away from the holder. Some people make irrational decisions when angered. That irrationality is magnified under intoxication.

What's your opinion? How does it work in other states with lax gun laws? Are folks permitted to carry concealed at sporting events in say Florida or Arizona?

I would think the fanaticism of some sports fans is even worse when mixed with guns than your general bar and drinking environment. At huge sporting events some of those sports nuts might also be CCW permit holders and some of them might decide to drink a few beers, you know, bad-rules-be-damned and all that.

What do you think? Good idea or bad idea?

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Please leave a comment.



Baltimore Boy Killed Playing with Daddy's Gun


The Baltimore Sun reports


A Baltimore boy who was apparently playing with a gun shot and killed a 15-year-old friend Saturday morning in Cherry Hill, Baltimore police said.
Police could not say Saturday how many times the boy was shot or who owned the gun. The gun was secured in the house, but the children had found a key or passcode to unlock it, said police spokesman Kevin Brown. The shooter, who was either 11 or 12 years old, was not being charged at this time because the killing appeared to be an accident, he said.
"We want this to serve as a reminder of the extreme importance of securing weapons in the home," Brown said.

I think police spokesman Brown got that wrong. This couldn't possibly serve as a reminder about securing your guns since the gun was secured and the kids got to it anyway. What it could serve as a reminder of, though, is the fallacy of thinking a gun in the home makes you safer.

How many times do you think that particular gun was used in a DGU to thwart home invaders and rapists? I'd guess none, just like most of the guns in homes. They generally sit there doing no good whatever until sooner or later someone misuses them either by kids getting ahold of them, like in this case, or a negligent discharge while cleaning them, or the burglars get them.

All the while, the owners of these guns will proclaim their god-given natural human rights. Sick irony or weird paradox, I don't know what you should call it.

Click here for statistics and solution.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


Extremely Rare Shooting in Gun-Paradise Oregon

The Register Guard reports on what I realize is an extremely rare situation.  In fact that's why these stories make the news because they're so extremely rare. practically unheard of. Think of it this way. Let's say lawful gun owners doing something wrong with thier guns make news only a couple hundred times a day. To put that into perspective you have to divide by all the gun owners in the world, of which there are millions, and then by all the planets in that galaxy, of which there are billions.

See what I mean.


A Eugene man accused of shooting and wounding a coworker Friday morning at his family’s west Eugene repair shop remained at the business until police officers arrived and took him into custody, authorities said.
The suspect, 39-year-old Dale Brandon O’Callaghan, is charged with first-degree assault in connection with the shooting, which was reported at 6:49 a.m., police said.
O’Callaghan has never been charged with a crime in Oregon, according to state court records.

What's your opinion? How much you wanna bet Mr. O'Callaghan was covered by one or more of the Famous 10% criteria?

(cross posted on Mikeb302000)


Please leave a comment.



Misogyny in Music

Three recent music posts have had a common theme, the same theme as many of our other news-related posts, misogyny.

I'm opposed to censorship in music, to Parental Advisory labels and all that nonsense, but I'm also opposed to passively receiving the messages in these songs with a type of apathetic acceptance. I find that some rap music, with its in-your-face message of violence, can be easily recognized for what it is and enjoyed without subconsciously taking the lyrics to heart. The suggestion that music like that is responsible for violence is absurd.

Main stream and classic rock and roll, however, with its incredibly pervasive and pernicious message about women, goes largely unnoticed and accepted. Take this one for example. Neil Young is actually singing about having shot his woman for cheating on him. Everyone knows the Jimi Hendrix version of the ballad Hey Joe. Same message there, shoot the offending woman. But, did you realize that even The Beatles sang about this?

One interesting difference is the U.K. artists refer to a generic killing while their North American counterparts specify doing it with a gun.

It's interesting that male-dominated rock and roll music is shot through with this ugly message. More interesting still is that it is largely unrecognized for what it is.  It's no wonder that domestic violence is as widespread as it is. And like all types of violence, gun availability makes it worse.

(cross posted on Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.



15 Years for Shooting ex-Fiance

The Columbus Dispatch reports

Assistant Prosecutor David Zeyen said Stredney confronted Hart in the parking lot of NCO Financial Systems on Frantz Road as he arrived for work on the morning of Dec. 14. She tried to force him into her car at gunpoint and shot him in the face when he refused.
She threw the handgun from the window of her car as she fled and was stopped by Dublin police less than a mile away.
Stredney's mental illness was among the reasons that Hart had called off their wedding plans, Zeyen said.
She purchased the gun a week before the shooting and asked police to show her how to use it, claiming she had been a burglary victim and needed to protect herself.
Stredney, of Warren, Ohio, made a lengthy statement in court, saying she had been under a psychiatrist's care for 19 years but "no one knows what's wrong with me."

Gun rights advocates are opposed to any and all attempts to screen prospective gun buyers for mental fitness. This, thay say, would infringe on their god-given fundamental human right to own that particular inanimate object.

The result of all this freedom is in the news every day. Usually it's men shooting women in domestic incidents, but sometimes it's like this.

What's your opinion? Are Ohioans more free or less free because of the gun rights they enjoy?

(cross posted on Mikeb302000)

Please leave a comment.



Why is Crime Dropping?


Link sent in by Laci the Dog


The BBC reports on ten possible explanations. Somehow they didn't even mention more guns equals less crime. Here's my favorite.

There is a controversial theory put forward by economist Steven Levitt that the increased availability of legal abortion after the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 on Roe v Wade meant that fewer children were born to young, poor, single mothers. This, says the theory, stopped unwanted babies in the 1970s and 80s from becoming adolescent criminals in the decades that followed. But some of his peers have questioned whether the evidence really supports the theory.


(cross posted on Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.



Advertise Blogads