Via Uncle:

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

–snip–

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

–snip–

Well YOU DON’T SAY.

In case y’all didn’t notice this, I don’t let things go down the memory hole.

After my last response to Koji, his frat-brother running mate Joey Meehan jumped into the fray, deleting everything I’d written, everything Koji had written, and everything my friend Dan had written. He left intact, however, a couple of posts that added nothing to the discussion and instead served just to (lamely attempt to) insult me. Brilliant!

Then, Joey said:

Joey Meehan wrote at 7:33 pm:

Dan & Laurel,I am sorry if you two are taking offense to our standpoint on the issue. We feel that the college environment poses too many threats towards violence enough, let alone with firearms involved. We both understand that there are pros and cons for both sides of the argument; however, we have told you once what we are standing for and we would both appreciate it if you two would discontinue posting your concerns on this issue. This is not a myspace blog. If you have any other concerns with campus policy and our standpoints, please feel free to post another question. We encourage everyone to get involved. Thank you.

Joey Meehan

Joey,

I would expect transparency out of ASUI Senators, as well as ownership of prior statements. Thus, now that you have deleted the entirety of my exchange with Koji under the pretense of decluttering your group’s wall, I assume you won’t object to me posting a simple link to where I’ve copy and pasted everything Koji and I said:

[link to Facebook group]

Your constituents do have a right to know where you stand on this issue, do they not - as well as a right to see how Koji speaks to those who challenge him?

Chris - my apologies, next time I’ll try to use smaller words to make my points easier for you to understand.

Cheers and good evening, everyone!

Laurel, you exacerbate me with the exuberance of your vociferous. If such a misuscule issue is going to abhor your from voting for a candidate, then how can you muster the gumption to vote for anybody at all. My commendations for you would be to run for ASUI senate yourself, however from what I have read you have excessively proven you are far more contented to be a petulant, shortsighted, CRETIN!

Laurel, your response to me makes no sense…would you like to try and articulate a more coherent response, or should all of us just settle on the presumption that you are in fact “touched”? = )

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:42pmhey

i appreciate ur concern with the issue. stop leaving aggressive posts on our wall. for one it is disrespectful. were not trying to argue with u so u need to relax. for two it makes our group look like shit because we have two people talking shit back and forth on the wall. u dont see us throwing facts and opinions at you. show some respect.

—

Dan Ritter
Today at 7:56pm

The problem here Mr. Meehan is exactly what you just said…you aren’t throwing facts back at me. Koji, your boy, was making you look bad. I’m looking for reasonable people to represent me, not people who 1) dodge the question 2) complain that I’m being aggressive 3) have nothing constructive to say

—

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:57pm

then were not ur guys

Koji Moy wrote at 5:45 pm:

wow…is this an nra meeting?

Koji Moy wrote at 6:03 pm:

One question for both of you little lovebirds..
Would Virginia Tech allow the posession of concealed weapons on campus?
how about Northern Illinois University?
you may have legitimate points and clearly have deeply investigated this issue;however, i do not feel that there is a clear necessity to carry a weapon on campus. End of discussion

1. Wait, let me get this straight: If a man and a woman share common views, that means they’re “lovebirds?” Would you like to bring any other sexist allegations into this discussion, or are you done now?

2. Should I infer from your reference above to your status as a Delta Chi brother that this kind of discourse is condoned by your fraternity?

3. Do you believe it is appropriate to resort to ad hominem attacks against somebody who challenges your stance on something, especially when the people challenging you are those you are asking for a vote? You do realize you are insulting people you would serve as a representative, right?

4. Since you are missing the point completely: Both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have policies prohibiting carry on campus. And somehow, the murderers at both universities (and every other murderer who enters a “gun-free zone”) passed through the magic forcefield of said policies and killed people anyway. Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that criminals disobey laws… and those who would seek to carry legally in defense of themselves and those around them were disarmed?

5. Perhaps you are unaware, but this IS an issue that will be coming before the Idaho legislature again this year, and will almost certainly be discussed at the ASUI Senate. It is also being discussed, legislated and litigated across the country. (Allow me to point you at http://concealedcampus.org/ for more information.)

It is entirely inappropriate for someone seeking the office of ASUI senator to be both utterly ignorant on an issue and unwilling to conduct a discussion about it. Such an attitude is contrary to the whole point of representation, and dangerous to the legislative process.

I truly hope individuals on BOTH sides of the concealed carry issue will ask for higher standards from their ASUI Senators than you are offering with your candidacy.

In case you’re wondering what kind of training in logic and rhetoric modern college students are receiving, here’s a fun exchange with candidate for ASUI Senate, Koji Moy:

I am fully against the right of licensed individuals to legally carry concealed weapons on campus. For one reason, why would they need to? What serious threats do people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from? Last time i checked there were no elk or deer on campus so i really see no reason as to why anyone would like to bring a gun on campus, unless for malicious purposes.

I kid you not, the fourth point of his platform is:

4) Campus safety. Although we would both love to walk every girl home to assure their safety at night, a severe change must be made to campus safety. NO MORE rape and violence victims! We must find a solution to this devastating problem that is effecting our campus.

Absolutely zero cognitive connection, there.

I responded.

Koji,

I was just shown the following message, which was your response to your position on concealed carry on campus:

[QUOTE OF ABOVE MESSAGE - "I am fully against..."]

I’d like to know how you rationalize item #4 of your platform with your position on concealed carry. I am quite familiar with the safety concerns facing University of Idaho students, especially those of us who happen to be female. As a gun owner who trains in the use of firearms in self-defense, I am extremely disturbed by your failure to recognize rape and assault as “serious threats people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from.”

Your characterization of firearms as valid only for hunting game and/or malicious use shows a fundamental lack of understanding of safety and self-defense, as well as a lack of understanding of the time, training and thought gun owners put into their decision to carry.

Let me make this clear: I am disturbed not just because you disagree with me, but because your response uses reactionary language that shows you don’t really understand the depth of this issue. Because of your narrow-minded and misguided view on this issue, I have to urge the men and women of the University of Idaho who are genuinely concerned about campus safety to withhold their votes from you.

As I was replying, a friend was having a separate conversation with him (he hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said, yet) and sent me the following elaboration from Koji:

First of all, in the terrible unlikely case that we did infact allow people to carry weapons on campus, there would be far more havoc than before. Consider these situations:
1) A man walks behind you points his gun at you and orders you to do various things against your will. Just because you have a gun do you think you are going to stop him? If you shot him you would come under just as much punishment because he had the right to carry a gun on campus!
2) Before class a man comes armed with an automatic weapon and brings it out with intent to shoot. Are you going to stop that? Are you going to shoot him because once again you would come under scrutiny as its his right to have the gun just as much as its yours.

How about a better alternative. How about we make as much of an effort we can to inform women on effective ways to stay safe such as:
-never travel alone at night
-carry a can of pepper spray

Sooo I replied (publicly):

Okay, I have to respond yet again. Koji, you apparently do not understand the legal distinction between aggression and self-defense. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Using a weapon as part of an assault is a crime. A person who uses a firearm for illegal purposes is NOT on equal legal footing with someone who uses a firearm in self-defense. I cannot believe you really think those actions are one and the same!

Furthermore, I am flat-out offended by the idea your solution to campus safety for women is, essentially, CHAPERONES. I should not be required to have an escort after dark to ensure my safety on the University of Idaho campus - you’re honestly saying that, rather than allow me to take responsibility for my own self-defense, you’d suggest my best defense is a babysitter? How chauvinistic!

Regarding pepper spray: I have a female friend who is a police officer in Montana. She shared the story of undergoing OC spray training, where the officers are required to complete a series of combative tasks after being pepper sprayed. Her assessment of the training? The spray did NOT stop her from being able to move or to attack and defeat her targets. It just heightened her adrenaline and rage.

Pepper spray, when effective, is basically designed to allow a victim time to run away. How is that a valid defense for a handicapped person? How about a victim with asthma, which can become life-threatening if they inhale any of the overspray? Or how about a woman like me, who is currently eight months pregnant and not running anywhere very fast? All of the above are ideal victims to an attacker, because we present weak targets. And yet you’re more concerned with an attacker’s rights than my right to carry an equalizing weapon like a firearm?

Again: I am not disturbed merely by the fact we disagree on this issue, but because you are so willing to take extreme, authoritative positions on this issue without an understanding of basic foundational principles like legal self-defense vs. illegal brandishing.

I would hope a candidate for a legislative body would be more interested in educating themselves on laws than you have demonstrated yourself to be, Koji, especially before expressing a definitive opinion on them.

Koji,

Here are some sections of Idaho Code for your review:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400001.K - Murder defined
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400009.K - Justifiable homicide by any person
(Notice the distinction between the two.)

http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020001.K - Lawful resistance
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002.K - Resistance by threatened party
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002A.K - Legal jeopardy in cases of self-defense and defense of other threatened parties - which I think is important enough to quote in full:
“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.”

I also recommend your complete review of Title 18, Chapter 33, found here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/idstat/TOC/18033KTOC.html
Which details firearms laws in full, including the crime of weapon possession with malicious intent:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330001.K (again, distinct from legal carry)
the crime of brandishing:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330004.K
And detailed statutory explanations of both proper firearms handling and the punishments for failure to follow said laws.

For the statutes dealing with lawful concealed carry, see here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

These people vote in real elections too, you know. No wonder the Republic is in jeopardy.

EDIT: An update in the next post!

Comrades,

In case this wasn’t already obvious (i.e. you were living under a rock): PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA IS A BIG GODDAMN PROBLEM.

From change.gov, which outlines Obama’s transition plans (hat tip to Uncle):

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

You know, I don’t think everyone who voted for Obama wants this stuff. I mean hell - I know a guy who voted for Obama because he thinks Barry Jesus is the solution to our economic woes, and he went and bought himself a complete Stag today because he realizes he’s about to lose the ability to. (Don’t worry, I already told him he’s seven different kinds of stupid.) But, point being: I don’t think these people understand that yes, they honest-to-Pete just voluntarily voted to trade our liberties for WARM FUZZY HOPE.

Hey, at least you really can’t accuse me of unfoundedly predicting impending doom at this point, considering the arrogant bastard is openly flaunting his intention to wage war on my rights.

Fine. If Obama wants to see our rifles on a battlefield, we’ll give him a battlefield. Μολὼν λαβέ.

*waits for the Brownshirts Black-Baggers Truth Squads to come haul her away*

Okay, I know I said I was signing off the election stuff, but this doesn’t really count. Check out what showed up in the UK’s Daily Mail:

PETER HITCHENS: The Zombie and the Third-World Marxist … How the American West views the presidential race

They tell me that about one person in 50 on the streets of Moscow, Idaho, is legally carrying a concealed pistol. A lot more have them in their cars. I rather approve of this, though I don’t think I’ll join in.

Many of those packing heat are women combining a hard, practical feminism with a conservative view of the right to bear arms.

The important thing is that you don’t know who is armed and who isn’t, and nor do potential rapists and muggers. I am sure this arrangement improves everyone’s manners no end.

It is certainly a very polite place and shoot-outs here are a good deal rarer than they are in gun-controlled London or Manchester.

…

MORE

It’s really a fantastic article, but I’m probably biased because I feel like I’m in on all the inside jokes.

For the record, picture #1 is inside Tri-State, where we don’t shop because they are anti-open-carry.

But this?

That’s Sure Shot, our go-to gun shop, and we flippin’ LOVE that sign. I just about died when I saw that picture in the article.

Awesome, awesome, awesome. I love our weird little town.

My sister has been a resident of the great state of Idaho (Esto Perpetua!) for 22 days. She has been of-age for five days. She’s had her own place of residence for three days, and her Idaho driver license for about two hours.

She just paid for her first lower receiver, which will arrive on Friday.

Huzzah!

We’ve been mulling over this one for a while, and I thought I’d throw it out there for the brain trust.

What do you think is the best way to deal with kids and guns in the same house?

We’ve been an adults-only household (both residents and visitors, 99% of the time) for as long as we’ve been a gun-owning household, so adjustments will have to be made. I cannot get behind the lock-’em-all-up mentality, as I think it’s just as irresponsible to deny the adults of the household speedy access to our means of self-defense as it is to leave the children of the household easy access to tools they do not properly understand. And I likewise think it is irresponsible (and against our ideology, anyway) to make guns a forbidden fruit, so I believe in exposing children to them while constantly reinforcing safety.

So, here’s where I’m at (with full recognition this may have to vary to respond to the particular personalities and maturity levels of our kids) -

Guns in the household must be in one of three states:
- Loaded and secured on our persons; i.e. holstered pistols
- Loaded (condition three?) and behind a locked door; i.e. home-defense shotgun secured in locked bedroom
- Unloaded and stored separately from ammo, both out-of-reach of kids (or locked up); i.e. extraneous guns and ammo high on a closet shelf, in a safe, etc.

Firearm theory will be approached as follows:
- Four safety rules drilled into kid’s brain… from birth ;)
- Eddie Eagle approach: STOP! Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult. …BUT…
- Guns aren’t bad. While there should always be adult supervision, all they have to do is ask and we will allow them to examine/handle firearms. (Hat-tip to an Arfcom dad for that one, who said it worked very well with his kids.)
- Proper adherence to the rules and demonstrated respect for firearms will earn the first BB gun… Responsible use of the BB gun will lead to the .22LR… and so forth.

Again, I recognize that this may totally vary from kid to kid. If we have a lock-picking monkey-child, we may have to rethink it. I don’t have arbitrary age limits in mind, either, so earning responsibility is going to be a big deal.

Here’s one I’m kind of hung up on, though: How do we approach toy guns? Philosophically, I’m not opposed to gunplay (a la cops and robbers) and I recognize kids will make a stick into a gun. I’m most concerned about mixed signals - don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy… unless it’s pretend? Stop, don’t touch, etc…. unless it’s a toy? Do you disallow play with lookalike toy guns completely? Do you tell the kid they have to treat every gun like it’s real until they get an adult’s confirmation it’s a toy? How do you drill home that the cap gun that goes “SNAP!” is okay to “shoot” at their friend but the BB gun that goes “psst” isn’t okay to shoot at anything they don’t want to destroy?

Yeah, yeah, I realize I haven’t even birthed the kid yet, but I tend to plan (way) ahead. Plus, it’s a big deal to us to be good ambassadors for firearms - as always - so I’d like to have a gameplan in place that we can relay to others… both gun-owners and not.

I’d heard that the new Form 4473 now includes a category for “other,” no longer just differentiating between long guns and handguns. “Other” covers receivers and frames, apparently.

What I hadn’t heard until tonight is that the BATFE has also decided that while receivers and frames count as firearms, but are not rifles or shotguns, they are not legal to transfer to persons under 21 - even receivers that can only be made into rifles or shotguns.

The new form instructions, per FreeRepublic:

If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun) it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun. However they are still firearms by definition and subject to the same GCA limitations as any other firearm. See section 921(a)(3)(b).

18 USC section 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm other than a shotgun of rifle to any person under 21.

Since a frame or receiver for a firearm to include one that can only be made into a long gun, is a “firearm other than a shotgun or a rifle” it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21.

Also note that multiple sale forms are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms or pistol grip firearms, since they are not “pistols or revolvers” under section 923(g)(3)(a).

Apparently this is a case of the law being on the books, but the BATFE not deciding to do anything about it until now. The law needs to be changed, and it needs to give the receiver-buyer the benefit of the doubt, as the law is with ammo purchases - i.e. ammo that can be used in either a rifle or a handgun is legal to purchase at 18 if you say you’re buying it for a rifle.

I’ll be writing to Bill Sali to ask him to address the issue - but, in the meantime, if you’re 18-20 and want a stripped lower, you better hury up and find a FFL who hasn’t switched to the new form - which is mandatory as of 11/15.