The Armed Citizen # 6

Navigation

User login

Online users

w1r3d1
Chia
FRESH
oldtimeydave
Arts From The Heart
summerc
dr
Jeff Brigham

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

colormagician
wilybadger
Mariner719
stiks071
banyantreenich

The Armed Citizen # 6

Submitted by Krull on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 3:44pm.

Returning home to find a man rooting around in her living room, a 22-year-old woman quickly fled to the bedroom.

She locked the door behind her and obtained her husband’s handgun and ammunition. According to authorities, the young woman fled to an adjacent bathroom and turned the door’s lock while the intruder forcefully entered the bedroom. She quickly loaded her husband’s gun and, when the intruder began pounding on the bathroom door, she fired a single shot.

Upon realizing his intended victim was armed, the once-brazen thug fled the home.

(The Record, West Paterson, NJ, 09/26/07)

Krull's blog
Login or register to post comments

My brother-in-law, who lives

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 4:29pm.

My brother-in-law, who lives in unincorporated Pierce County, just told me of a recent incident where he chased off a prowler. The guy was trying to break into a home occupied by a lone woman in her 90s. My b-i-l was armed, the guy went away.

I suppose it would have been better for my b-i-l to have been unarmed, call the police, and wait while God knows what happened to his neighbor.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

Who knows

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 4:36pm.

maybe they would have won the lottery.

Lightning's gotta strike

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:03pm.

Lightning's gotta strike sometime.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

Good story

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 8:16pm.

Thanks for sharing. As can be seen sometimes the mere presence of a weapon, or a safely fired warning shot is sufficent deterant. Few want to grapple with an armed and alert person.

One down, four to go

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 7:05pm.

See a previous post of mine.

I'm amazed at how you let this bother you

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 8:41pm.

Some of us celebrate the act of being able to defend one's self. I'm sorry that this goes against your way of thinking, and the statistics (and stories) you throw out there. So instead of getting pissy (like your message sounds, given your message on another thread), why not let those of us who admire these stories have a little bit of joy?

+1 To Norm

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 8:43pm.

n/t

Norm

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 7:56am.

I've just grown tired of the gun lobby on Olyblog. I think a few people expressed that they were tired of someone's dissertations about The Olympian at one point. That writer also felt his posts had value.

If every time Krull posted one more happy gun story and I in turn posted that I again lived another day without the need of a firearm, the whole thing would be rather stupid.

When Krull and Tschida started their Right Wing chant on the global warming thread I posted "I smell 5 more happy gun stories coming". So far, I'm 20% correct.

What do folks think about

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 12:26pm.

the idea of ballistic fingerprinting? Here's a paper describing how it would work. I don't see how it would deprive anyone of their right to bear arms. Thoughts.

Could easily be an invasion of privacy, don't you think?

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 1:31pm.

While we're at it, let's take a sperm sample from every male on the planet just in case a woman is raped.

Yes, privacy issues are certainly worth considering.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 1:41pm.

However, it does not prevent the state from keeping track of vehicle owndership. Not sure what the difference is. The sperm analogy is interesting, but really Norm, all you'd need to provide is a cheek swab. Or are you suggesting that you have unique "ballistic" characteristics. Seriously though, the privacy issue is a good point, but I can't differentiate it from the similar practice of automobile registration and titling.

Unique ballistic characteristics

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 4:28pm.

Thanks Gug, I need all the laughs I can get right now.

You have no right to own a vehicle.

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 5:24pm.

You do have a right to own a firearm. That's how I differentiate it.

I'm not so sure I'd take it

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 1:42pm.

I'm not so sure I'd take it to that extreme.

It would make sense, plus legal gun owners shouldn't have any worries over their weapon being used in a crime. If it gets stolen I'd assume they'd call the police and file a report.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

Ballistic fingerprinting

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 5:57pm.

Is flawed. As a barrel wears it changes, sloppy cleaning can damage a bore, tools can change a bore, etc.. Futhermore why should the government have a record of what the bore on my gun looks like? It's none of their business. What if I replace the barrel on my gun? Maybe the government should maintain a list of books you read too. The problem with "reasonable" requests that protect "law abiding citizens" is that sooner or later the government will "reasonably" seize our guns. What part of "Shall not be infringed" (or in the Washington constitution) "Shall not be impaired" is so hard to grasp?

Shouldn't have any worries huh?

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:05pm.

Unless their firearm is stolen while they are out of town, or like me, stolen from a relatives home when they aren't home. Sounds like a great way to frame someone. Really, if we have nothing to be afraid of lets start registering DNA as well. How many sexual assaults happen every year in this country?

Heck

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:19pm.

Let's go all the way. Register DNA and all other biometric information available, encode this into your driver's license or state ID, report everything read, listened to or viewed to a central database. Upload every purchase you make to the government. Let every aspect of your life be tracked. Hey, it's for your own good. You haven't broken any laws, so why worry? Trust me, after they eliminate the gun owners, then everything else will follow. "Why that subversive literature is bad for you, and what legitimate use is there for such books?" Hitler disarmed the Jews, then herded them into cattle cars, not the other way around.

Your response to Ballistic

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 9:42am.

Your response to Ballistic Fingerprinting convinced me it's not such an open-and-shut deal. I didn't realize it was simple to change them so dramatically...over half the forensics shows I watch have ballistic markings as a major factor in capturing the criminal, you'd think they'd be smart enough to drill out the barrel after shooting someone.

As for tracking our purchases, basically that's what happens with our debit and/or credit cards. Just like Revelations...they'll accept the Mark of the Beast, which will be required to sell or make purchases.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

Well, then

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:25am.

why don't they all do that now? Change the ballistic fingerprint that is. Given it's such a well-know piece of evidence.

More criminals have used

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:29am.

More criminals have used bleach at a crime scene in recent years thanks to studying American Justice, Cold Case Files, and even the fictional shows like CSI.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

Could it be that

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:04pm.

bleech is easy and effective and changing the ballistic fingerprint is more difficult and possibly innefective. I don't think we've established the effectiveness of altering the "fingerprint." With all do respect to Mr. Six.

Please forgive my vagueness here

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 9:25pm.

Overhauling one 'puter, trying to pull data off of another, and doing a lot of work from a public terminal right now. IOW, I don't have the data at my fingertips about ballistic fingerprinting. However,if you are willing to give me some time, or do a bit of research yourself, I will post some hard data.

Until then, just consider that I could easily use tools to modify both the chamber of a gun and the bore to change how they "fingerprint"

The car registration analogy not really the same

Submitted by Krull on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 3:09pm.

Let's deal with a closer analogy, one right for another right.

Before you can write on a blog, comment on an editorial, or write a piece for the Sitting Duck, you have to register all your personal info with the government?

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

Not sure why the car analogy is not apt.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 3:17pm.

Could you explain? I think Norm's comment on privacy has merrit, but I'm having difficulty figuring out why it's no different than registering your car. As far as writing goes, I already reveal myself in the public record by publishing. There's nothng hidden. I also don't see what would justify that kind of registration process.

Cars

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 5:59pm.

Are titled real property. Guns are not. Personally I feel automobile registration and driver's licenses are unconstitutional. The basic right of freely moving about the country in the vehicle of one's choice unencumbered by licenses and registration existed for a very long time.

That right still exists.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 7:18pm.

You don't need a licence to walk, ride a bicycle, or to hitchhike. I quite enjoy hitchhiking the West Coast, myself.

The Canaanite's Call

Great analogy

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 4:30pm.

We know how many people have been killed by blogs and editorial comments

Well, Hearst did a damned

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 4:30pm.

Well, Hearst did a damned good job getting a war going which killed thousands of people.

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.
C. Montgomery Burns

And we knew it was Hearst.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 4:39pm.

No need for him to be registered.

Indeed.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 5:45pm.

Poor bastard got a movie made about his own personal insecurity and its disastrous consequenses. That must've been just a touch embarrassing.

The Canaanite's Call

There appears to be no room

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:30pm.

There appears to be no room for discussion of gun regulation because the second ammendment appears to forbid any such regulation at all...even though arms are clearly subject to conciderable regulation in this country. Okay.

Give that man a cigar!

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:32pm.

Just as there is no room to discuss limiting freedom of religion or the press, or.... (insert civil right of your choice here)

There are limitations on the press

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:49pm.

Commercial speech, for example, is not protected. And you ignored the last clause of my post...the important one.

I ignored it

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 9:55am.

Due to time constraints. Yes there is considerable legislation, and I believe the vast majority of them are BS. I'll reply later, today or tomorow if you want to discuss this further. Sorry :-)

you are jumping to conclusions

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:50pm.

I think the idea of fingerprinting is a serious breech of privacy. I don't think cops should be able to randomly pull folks over either.(I've been in the car when this happend) They do though and then give some bullshit excuse for why the person was pulled over. I don't want that to happen to me because I happen to own a firearm. I have the right to privacy even though I am a firearm owner.

And Norm, I agree with your right to privacy concerns

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 6:57pm.

Yet you don't have a right to privacy regarding your automobile. Sounds like a 5th ammendment issue rather than a 2nd ammendment issue. That alone would probably make this kind of regulation unconstitutional.

I think there should be more privacy concerning autos

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 7:04pm.

but the politicians don't agree with me. There are a few states out there who require any new firearm sold in that state to be sold with 2 fired casings (the backsides of a cartridge). If I'm remembering right, one goes to the local police authority, and the other goes to the state police. This type of finger-printing relies on the fairly unique indentation that each firing pin leaves. This apparently has not been deemed a violation of privacy...yet.

I'm all for catching criminals Gug, you know that. I just don't like being treated like a criminal for a lifestyle preferrence. I think you understand that though. I don't want to take the "It's the second amendment" route, because you are correct, just like every other right, they are regulated in certain circumstances.

Freedom of speech

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 6:58pm.

There are also laws concerning slander and libel, therefore it's not a free-for-all. No one is asking for all guns to be illegal, just reasonable laws to protect ALL

Please read everything above

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 7:15pm.

Nobody is asking you to make yourself a victim and not have protections set in place. Ballistic fingerprinting will not protect anyone. It will catch some folks, but will not prevent crime anymore than any other law such as this.

I'm all for catching the bad guy, as stated above, but I also think I am entitled to some privacy. Registering all of my firearms (which would be necessary) and having them fingerprinted would be a huge knock to my privacy. Illegal wiretaps might save lives too, how do you feel about those?

I think,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 7:24pm.

What it boils down to is that the threat of being caught doesn't stop people from committing crimes, especially violent crimes. I don't believe that gun control will prevent crimes and I also don't think ballistic fingerprinting will either. It might help cops catch shooters, but like you say, at what expense to privacy? There is a problem with America's attitude. Throughout out history, we've glorified either the bad guy (Billy The Kid) or the good guy who shoots first (John Wayne). For some reason violence is ingrained in us, it could be that we're just a young country still needing to mature and learn to really function as a society, I hope that's the answer, because otherwise we're just all a bunch of psychos.

Agreed

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 7:36pm.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

-Benjamin Franklin

+1

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 9:32pm.

n/t

Who determines what is reasonable?

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 9:31pm.

And can you honestly believe a violent society will change because a few tools or another are unavailable? The request for "reasonable" legislation is the slippery slope that has already lead to near total bans in other countries. Heck, I'll bet exterminating one minority or another, or simply registring (after disarming them of course) was presented as reasonable.

Washington DC has a near total gun ban. Must be a wonderful safe place to live... Only the criminals can shoot back. Gun laws ultimately protect only governments and criminals.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: