(Video courtesy of CBS News)
Evidently there was a gunfight in Toledo, Ohio on October 8th.
According to the police (as reported by CBS), there were five gunmen involved in a fight. The fight was evidently sparked when the barman asked a patron selling marijuana to leave.
I’ve made a few observations:
Security cameras always seem to produce video inadequate to identify people depicted in the image.
The barman rapidly produces his cellphone, presumably to call the police, after the first fight starts.
Many people fled immediately. This is smart.
Some people remained to engage in a gun battle. This is stupid, particularly if the police are on the way.
Running back into the building to engage in further gun battle is really stupid.
There were no observable weapon malfunctions. Whether this is due to regular maintenance by the gunmen, luck, or some other condition is unknown.
If you wish to hit your target, aiming is important. These individuals did not aim well.
Very few objects in a bar offer cover, rather than concealment.
All participants in the gunfight used semi-auto pistols, rather than revolvers. According to the police, 17 casings were found at the scene. This is a substantial amount of evidence for police.
Based on these observations, I’ll be bold enough to make? a few recommendations:
Avoid gunfights wherever possible.
This can usually be accomplished by staying out of seedy places and staying away from seedy people.
You should be aware of the mood in a bar. If things start getting tense, seriously consider leaving.
Once things go tits-up (e.g. a fight starts), it’s time to leave. Now.
If, for some reason, you decide to stick around after the barfight, be aware of patrons drawing guns. Once this happens, there is no possible way that the situation will improve. Get out. Now.
Gunfights are like fires: you should flee in the most expedient manner possible and remain out of harms way. I can’t think of a single reason why an everyday person should ever consider returning to a gunfight. You should absolutely not, under any circumstances, return to the gunfight to continue fighting.
If you are deploying security cameras, get good ones. High-quality video and sound recording is very useful.
If it is necessary to call 911, it’s preferably to do so from a landline phone. This has the advantage of immediately displaying the exact address of the phone that placed the call, which can speed police response considerably.
Violent criminals do not obey the law, and violent crime can occur anywhere.
If you are willing and able to carry in a safe and responsible manner, do so. While fleeing to safety is almost always the best thing to do (and fortunately seemed to be possible for every innocent bystander in this incident), it’s not always possible — a gun can give one a fighting chance of surviving and escaping if left with no other option.
Of course, the best advice of all is to simply avoid fights and, by extension, gunfights.
According to varioussources, Melaine Hain has been murdered.
I know very little about the woman other than what others who knew her have said, but she seemed like a decent person.
My sincere condolences go out to her now-orphaned children, her family, and her friends.
Although I’m located in Arizona, if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know.
As this burglar discovered the hard way.
Of course, this happening in Maryland requires the following bit of hand-wringing:
Authorities are determining whether the student will face criminal charges, Guglielmi said.
He’d better not. According to the CNN article,
Police did not release the name of the suspect, who Guglielmi said had a long criminal history, or that of the student.
[…]
The burglary suspect had been released from prison Saturday, Guglielmi said.
and
Burglars had taken two laptops and a Sony PlayStation from the students’ home Monday[…]
Student with a sword has three witnesses, presumably a police report documenting Monday’s burglaries, and the burglar has a long list of priors. Sounds open-and-shut to me.
I can’t imagine the horrible mess that a sword-stricken burglar, suddenly sans left hand, would leave in one’s apartment. I can only hope the cops left the students a sponge. Update: More information from the Baltimore Sun and the AP. Evidently the bad guy was a habitual criminal.
That’s the question asked by the Arizona Republic in this article.
Let’s go through their article, shall we?
First off, this picture: Jack Kurtz/The Arizona Republic
What’s with the media and not including actual pictures of Chris? It’s almost as if they don’t want to reveal the fact that he’s a well-dressed, tie-wearing, bespectacled black man, not some frothing-at-the-mouth nutjob. Of course, the color of one’s skin is irrelevant, but I can’t help but suspect that the media isn’t showing those pictures because it might cause some people to reconsider their worldview.
Just as local and state tourism officials tried to shed Phoenix’s unbecoming title as the “kidnapping capital of America,” another national moniker has emerged: gun-crazy.
I’m not sure that Phoenix was ever labeled the “kidnapping capital of the world” — maybe in the US, and maybe if you’re involved in the illicit narcotics trade, but certainly not for everyday persons.
As for the “gun-crazy” thing, says who?
A man carrying a pistol and semiautomatic rifle outside the Phoenix hall where President Barack Obama spoke this month ignited a media firestorm, reinforcing the stereotype of the Grand Canyon State as a gun-loving vestige of the Wild West.
Being a “gun-loving vestige of the Wild West” is a bad thing…why, exactly? The Old West was not nearly as “Wild” as movies make it out to be.
The firearms display, later revealed to be a publicity stunt, was legal under an Arizona law that allows most citizens to openly carry guns in public without a permit.
ZOMG! People can lawfully carry arms, and some choose to do so openly!
While this may come as a shock to some people, particularly urban New Englanders, almost every state in the union allows their citizens to carry arms, mostly concealed. Several states, including Arizona, don’t prohibit the open carriage of arms so long as the gun itself is not concealed (e.g. secured in a holster on the waist).
But the spotlight cast by cable-news pundits, newspaper editorials and blogs – including censure from a world-renowned travel writer – raised questions about whether Arizona’s lax gun laws make it safe to travel and do business in the state.
I can’t imagine how having law-abiding persons carrying arms makes the state any less safe.
“We’re an urban city, and there are individuals trying to hold on to the old ways of the Wild West,” said Phoenix Councilman Michael Nowakowski, himself a gun owner. “We’re going to lose a lot of conventions because of one knucklehead.”
While I admit that carrying a rifle to a public event may not be in the best of taste, what’s the big deal? Rifle or pistol, a huge number of Arizonans — many in Phoenix — carry arms on a regular basis.
I seriously doubt that Phoenix will lose many conventions or tourism: unless one is an activist or enthusiast of some sort, a state’s gun laws are not likely to enter into one’s thoughts when planning a convention. I’d suspect that location, number of nearby hotels, proximity to an airport, cost, and city life will be much higher priorities for convention planners and goers.
Before the gun stunt, tales of Mexican drug cartels abducting rival smugglers and immigrants and holding them for ransom in Valley homes had already painted Phoenix as a city under siege.
See, those are criminals. Chris, and others like him, are law-abiding citizens. Big difference.
The most visible [armed protester -AZR] was Phoenix resident Christopher Broughton, who verbally sparred with Obama supporters and gave media interviews with an AR-15 rifle strapped to his back and a pistol holstered at his side. A libertarian radio host, also sporting a pistol, said later that he and others cooked up the media stunt to draw attention to Second Amendment rights and Arizona’s open-carry law.
While I’ve said that such a stunt is probably not in the best of taste, what’s the big deal?
National news outlets, however, portrayed it as a disturbing trend, given America’s history of presidential assassinations.
Obama was inside the convention center, surrounded by a veritable army of Secret Service agents and police, behind a cordon of metal detectors and x-ray machines. I sincerely doubt that anyone meaning the president harm would be able to get within visual range of him. Chris, and the other protesters, were outside, on a public street, with a few cops and a Secret Service agent in the immediate vicinity.
“It is hard to know what is more shocking: the sight of a dozen Americans showing up to flaunt guns outside the venue for President Obama’s speech in Phoenix on Monday, or the fact that the swaggering display was completely legal,” the New York Times wrote Aug. 20.
How is any of this shocking? Outside of New York, there’s a (mostly) free country.
Don’t get me wrong — I’ve visited New York (both the City and the State) several times and enjoyed my visits, but urban New Yorkers tend to be rather insular and unaware of the goings-on in much of the rest of the country. I’d imagine that for someone who was born and raised in a highly-urbanized area where restrictive gun-control has been the norm for several generations, the sight of ordinary citizens with guns could be shocking…but so what?
Founder of the Frommer’s series of travel guidebooks, Frommer wrote that he would no longer visit Arizona, fearing for his personal safety after reading accounts of protesters carrying loaded weapons on the streets of Phoenix.
Frommer’s an idiot.
Frommer, who sold his company decades ago, was unavailable for comment. But he told NPR last weekend he was disturbed police officers stood around “like scared rabbits” while armed protesters tried to “threaten” and “intimidate” Obama supporters.
Fortunately Frommer doesn’t speak for the company that bears his name, so I’ll have no problem purchasing their excellent travel guides.
The police were certainly not “scared rabbits” — they were there to ensure the public order. Since the armed protesters previously informed the police that they’d be showing up, so as not to needlessly surprise and alarm the police, and were peaceable and law-abiding at all times, it’s hardly an issue.
I’ve seen videos of the event, and I can’t find a single example of armed protesters threatening or intimidating anyone. Anyone care to provide such evidence?
“Open-carry laws have to take second place to public order and to life,” said Frommer, a New York Democrat and Obama campaign contributor.
The lawful carriage of arms, including doing so openly, can help preserve and defend life.
When NPR host Guy Raz suggested Frommer was making Arizona sound like war-torn Mogadishu, Frommer responded: “Well, it’s getting that way. . . . The number of guns that are now being carried by citizens in Arizona is becoming frightening.”
Really? Law-abiding people carrying legal guns in a safe, legal manner is somehow “frightening”?
To quote Sgt. Hulka from Stripes, “Lighten up, Francis.”
Mayor Gordon has pointed out that Arizona is just one of 11 states where citizens don’t need a license to carry a firearm in public as long as it is visible. In fact, there are only seven states where openly carrying guns is unlawful.
In short, the majority of states allow open carry. Hardly a big deal then. Why, then, is this a huge news story?
But this year, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law three major bills that expanded gun rights, a step proponents said makes the state a safer place. Beginning Sept. 30, one of those laws will allow people with a concealed-weapons permit to carry guns into restaurants and bars, though they can’t pack heat while consuming alcohol.
Sounds good to me.
Another new law will restrict property and business owners from banning guns from parking areas so long as the weapons are kept out of sight in locked vehicles. A third allows gun owners to display their weapon when they feel threatened by unlawful force.
Again, a step in the right direction. The law that clarified when it was legal to display firearms in self-defense was a big deal.
“Every time we loosen gun laws to make it easier for citizens to carry guns in Arizona, we see a drop in the crime rate,” said Tucson resident Todd Rathner, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “These people have to get over the emotional, ignorant and insane reaction to law-abiding citizens with firearms.”
Well-said, sir.
If Mr. Rathner wishes to contact me, I’d be glad to buy him a drink of his choosing. (Within reason, of course. My budget is not unlimited.)
Tourism officials said crime has already been on the wane.
The number of violent crimes across the Valley fell in 2008 to 16,832, a 6 percent drop over the previous two years, according to FBI statistics.
The number of law-abiding persons carrying arms is increasing, yet crime is dropping? Shocking.
According to that link, there was an 18.4% increase in the number of permits issued from 2007 to 2008 and a 16.4% increase from 2006 to 2007. From 2006 to the present, there’s been a 58.9% increase in the number of concealed carry permits issued.
Basically, there’s no direct correlation between the number of law-abiding people with guns and the amount of crime? (If there was, you’d see crime numbers increasing as the number of law-abiding armed citizens increases.)
Awesome.
“We have a great, positive story to tell,” said Arizona Tourism Office Director Sherry Henry, who took part in last week’s meeting. “We just need to reassure the general public that loves Arizona and is interested in Arizona that it is safe to be here, that it is beautiful.”
Arizona is indeed a safe, beautiful state. I highly encourage people to come visit and explore.
If you choose to visit and lawfully openly carry a firearm whilst exploring this great state, more power to you.
Isn’t freedom grand?
According to the news, a suicidal man — said to be armed with a handgun — has barricaded himself inside his house three blocks from my apartment.
Of course, TPD decided to do a full SWAT callout, evacuate ~15 houses around the guy, and cordon off a few blocks around the house.
What the hell is wrong with people?
It’s one guy, suicidal, with a gun. Put a cop outside the front and back of the house in a concealed position and get a crisis counselor to call the guy on the phone. If he doesn’t come out, wait him out.
To me, SWAT seems more suited for a hostage situation, active shooter, or some other situation that requires (here it comes) Special Weapons And Tactics, not a lone suicidal guy. What the heck are they going to do against a suicidal guy, shoot him?
I guess they need to justify the expense, huh?
The Arizona Daily Star published an article in their Sunday Edition that stood out to me when I was grocery shopping today: it had a large, above-the-fold headline entitled, “US makes it easy for gun traffickers.”
While their article is long and makes a weak attempt at appearing balanced, it has some absurdities that I really must point out. I’ve made a few statements in my response that are likely to be common knowledge to gunny folks, though I’d appreciate it if readers could point out where I might find good sources for such statements so I can cite them properly.
Also, I wrote this post rather late at night, so I’m likely to have a few spelling or grammar mistakes. Mea cupla. Continue reading “Fisking the Daily Star”
They’re so out of touch with reality and na?ve that it’s amusing to read their press releases. It reminds me of the North Korean Central News Agency and the “articles” that they publish.
I just stumbled across this release, which has the following gems about the Holocaust Museum shooter. It was written several days ago, so the mention of “yesterday” refers to the day of the shooting itself, not yesterday relative to this post.
Yesterday, a bigot took the life of a museum security guard because he thought the Government was coming to take his weapons.? We can only wish that their guns had been taken away.
Wait, what? I read up a bit on this guy, and it seemed like his motives were “ZOMG JOOS!” and didn’t involve anything about gun control. Anyone have any confirmed info?
They continue with this:
I have to believe most Americans think that a man who spent time in prison for trying to assault the Federal Reserve Building and spread as much hate as this man did, who left a note saying ?Jews captured America?s money? and ?Jews? are America?s enemies? should indeed have had his guns taken away.
I also find it hard to believe that most Americans would believe that. Indeed, I think any reasonable person would agree that as a convicted violent criminal, he should be prohibited from owning arms. My understanding is that he was, in fact, prohibited from owning guns, and his ownership of said guns was illegal.
What do the Bradys propose? Making gun ownership by convicted criminals more illegaler ((“Illegaler” is a perfectly cromulent word.))? We might as well put them on double-secret probation for all the good it’ll do.
That said, I don’t think that he should have his right to keep and bear arms infringed simply because he’s a flaming douchebag who promotes hatred and intolerance. Last time I checked, people have a right to free speech, and so long as one is merely speaking (as opposed to acting on their hate by committing violent acts or encouraging others to do so), I see no justification for disarming them.
In the end, though, he wasn’t allowed to own guns due to his previous convictions, he did act on his hatred and intolerance,? he did commit acts of violence against the innocent, and he did end up murdering a security guard. I don’t think that making his illegal ownership and use of guns more illegal would have stopped him. The only thing that seems to have stopped him was bullets from the other security guard, yet the Bradys never seem to mention that.
Fortunately, the actions of the security guards kept him from killing others,? he is likely to survive his wounds, and will have his day in court.
The Brady Campaign extends sympathies to the innocent victims and others affected in today’s shooting at the Holocaust Museum.? This shows that having even more guns in more places is the wrong answer to America’s gun violence problem.
– Brady Campaign Press Release
What the hell are they smoking, and where can I get some?
Sure, the nutjob had a gun, but he possessed it illegally; he served a prison sentence after taking various guns into the Federal Reserve in 1981, and thus is almost certainly prohibited from carrying guns. Furthermore, it’s illegal to murder people (like the museum security guard he killed), something he did anyway. The passage of more laws restricting the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry private arms would not have prevented this incident.
In this case, the gunman was stopped by someone with a gun: another security guard. Clearly, having more guns (in the hands of good people, that is) was beneficial; I doubt that the shooter was interested in simply shooting a security guard and then leaving.
Of course, security guards are not everywhere, nor can they protect everyone all of the time. I trust that the lesson people will take away from this terrible incident is that no amount of laws can stop criminals from committing their heinous acts, but that an armed good guy can. To quote Breda, “Carry your gun – it’s a lighter burden than regret.”
In the aftermath of such a tragic event, I am reminded of the words of the late, great Jeff Cooper:
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
While not armed with rifles, I’d say that the security guards at the museum should be counted among those good men.
While piracy on the high seas has been an issue for years, the recent hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, a US-flagged ship, and its subsequent retaking by the crew and US Navy brought the issue a bit closer to home for Americans.
My understanding, such as it is, is that due to the variety of laws regarding weapons at all the various ports that these cargo ships stop at, it’s cheaper and easier for the company to simply not include any weapons in the ship’s equipment, and thus avoid any hassles with customs.
Personally, I don’t foresee (nor do I desire) merchant ships mounting fixed naval weapons to fend off pirates. That blurs the line between a “merchant ship” and a “warship,” and I can see that causing some issues in regards to international commerce. That said, I see no reason why some additional measures can’t be taken:
Have sealed, for-emergency-use-only arms lockers on the merchant ships. Shotguns seem to be pretty well-accepted the world over, even in countries like the UK. Have them setup in much the same way one has the “in case of emergency break glass” locker for firefighting equipment on land. The seals would make it much easier for customs officials to inspect and verify that the arms are not being used for nefarious purposes, and the size of the shotguns means that it would be more difficult to smuggle such arms into a country (is that really a concern?). Put such lockers in key areas, like the bridge, crew quarters, and the engine room. There’s really no excuse for crew needing to defend themselves with firehoses because they are unarmed.
Train the crews in self-defense. I don’t expect them to be Navy SEALs, I just expect them to know how to handle themselves in an emergency.
Have passive defense around the ship. Many homes have fences topped with broken glass, for example. Could a similar means of defense be implemented on a ship? Obviously, there are numerous legitimate reasons for needing to interact with the edge of the ship (throwing lines and whatnot), so a permanent installation might be unreasonable. Surely there could be various things done that would make boarding a ship much more difficult.
When traveling through pirate-infested waters, ensure that all exterior doors and hatches are locked. Even with RPGs, it’d be slow and time-consuming for pirates to blast their way through the heavy doors found on a ship.
Arrange for convoys to escort ships through heavily-pirated waters. Unlike WWII, large convoys wouldn’t be needed — one or two small warships could escort a fairly large number of cargo ships with only a few minute response time, rather than being hundreds of miles away. A helicopter or two might help as well.
Show the pirates we mean business. So far, the default course of action has been to pay the bounty. Such actions have only made the pirates bolder, as they think they can get big money from a relatively simple job. Whether it’s from crews being able to effectively defend themselves to warships escorting merchant vessels, showing the pirates that everyone opposes pirates and won’t let them easily take ships will (hopefully) go a long way to deterring pirate attacks.
That said, I offer a hearty “well done” to the US Navy and the captain and crew of the Maersk Alabama. Well done, indeed.
It must be that time of year: three police have been shot in Pittsburgh by a gunman. I offer my sincerest condolences to the friends and family of the fallen officers.
As expected, the Brady Campaign is dancing in the blood of the slain police officers with yet another press release.
According to the Bradys, the police were murdered by a…
“…man shooting ?hundreds of shots? who apparently believed the gun lobby propaganda that an ?Obama gun ban? would lead to his ?rights being infringed upon.'”
They go on to say,
“It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government [proposing some sort of gun ban].”
Further down on the page, they close with,
At the very least, require Brady background checks for all gun sales; restrict military-style assault weapons to the military and law enforcement and help law enforcement crack down on corrupt gun sellers.
I’m sorry, I don’t see how they can say that the “gun lobby” is making “false claims” about proposed gun bans when they then go on to advocate such bans in the form of “restrict[ing] military-style assault weapons.” Wouldn’t such a restriction be, by definition, a ban? I’m not sure how the Bradys can hold such conflicting viewpoints.
Thanks to Sebastian, it looks like the alleged (( Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, of course.)) killer, Richard Poplawski, was a prohibited person due to having been dishonorably discharged from the marines:
Perkovic [a friend of the alleged killer-AZR] also said that Richard Poplawski had received a dishonorable discharge from the Marines and that he has a history of domestic disputes.
If this is the case, Poplawski would have been legally prohibited from possessing firearms. The “history of domestic disputes” might also have been sufficient to make him a prohibited person. Since the killer seems to have had no problems with violating existing laws (( Such as those against murder, in addition to less serious crimes like possession of firearms by a prohibited person, discharge of firearms within city limits, etc. )), I’m not sure what the Bradys hope to accomplish with the addition of more laws. Update: Turns out it wasn’t a dishonorable discharge. My mistake.
