Kitsap Sun reporter looking for carry stories/comments

imported post

This reporter at the kitsap sun is looking for opinion on carrying (open or ccw) and even links to OCDO with the comment: " In fact, the state even has an "open carry" law, in which gun owners can wear their weapons outside their clothing that may surprise you."

http://blogs.kitsapsun.com/kitsap/crime/archive/2008/05/concealed_handguns_to_carry_or.html#more

Here is the text:
*************************************

Concealed Handguns: To Carry or Not to Carry

Two horrific school shootings this past year at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have galvanized both "concealed carry" gun owners and firearms opponents, in verbal battles that are taking place across the country.

A recent Seattle P-I blog adds the University of Washington to the list of campuses debating the issue.

From what I can tell, there are two central viewpoints here:

1) Those who believe that "concealed carry" laws on campuses will allow responsible owners to bring an aura of safety should a shooter begin a rampage;

2) Those who think banning the weapons on campus outright (and limiting them elsewhere) will prevent said shooter's access to get deadly weapons in the first place.

Washington's concealed pistol law allows 235,795 people to carry (as of May 7), according to Department of Licensing spokeswoman Christine Anthony. In fact, the state even has an "open carry" law, in which gun owners can wear their weapons outside their clothing that may surprise you.

For more local recent history, think back to Nov. 20, 2005: the day a shooter opened fire on a crowd at the Tacoma Mall.

Police interviewed several people there that day who were card carrying concealed pistol holders. Many of them pulled their weapons; not one of them fired back at the 20-year-old who is now serving a 1,961 month sentence.

Brendan McKown, the man most injured by the 20-year-old's bullets, had a concealed license himself. Here's what the P-I wrote about his experience -- and why he got a license.

"It's a stupid statement, but I have a concealed weapons permit in case some idiot shoots up a mall," McKown told the P-I.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this issue, so please, don't be shy.
*********************************************

imported post

Excellent response from McKown.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Excellent response from McKown.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it points out a serious weakness. Many GET CPL's but can't bring themselves to use their weapon when the time comes. How many of these CPL holders are carrying guns that they have yet to shoot a full box of ammo through in practice?

imported post

amlevin wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Excellent response from McKown.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it points out a serious weakness. Many GET CPL's but can't bring themselves to use their weapon when the time comes. How many of these CPL holders are carrying guns that they have yet to shoot a full box of ammo through in practice?

Click to expand...

A lot, unfortunatly I have whitnessed countless people purchasing a gun with the idea that should their life ever be in danger the gun will magically spring to life and dispach the bad guys of its own accord. Or worse yet saying something like well I could never actually shoot someone I just want a gun to scare them off.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Excellent response from McKown.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it points out a serious weakness. Many GET CPL's but can't bring themselves to use their weapon when the time comes. How many of these CPL holders are carrying guns that they have yet to shoot a full box of ammo through in practice?

Click to expand...

I think that the article does rather than McKown's statement. He was the one that actually tried to do something. His biggest mistake, from what I have read, was that he tried to do the movie/nice thing "Drop the gun!" instead of just shooting the a^&hole.

It did disturb me that there were "several" people who did nothing but pull their guns. We don't however know the whole story. Could it be that they didn't have a clear shot and would have been more likely to have ended up shooting a bystander?

imported post

My reaction was to question why they didn't shoot as well, but armchair quarterbacking this is probably pointless.

At worst, it serves as a reminder to the pro-gun-control people that not everyone with a CPL is a bloodthirsty American who wants to kill people.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

amlevin wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Excellent response from McKown.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it points out a serious weakness. Many GET CPL's but can't bring themselves to use their weapon when the time comes. How many of these CPL holders are carrying guns that they have yet to shoot a full box of ammo through in practice?

Click to expand...

I think that the article does rather than McKown's statement. He was the one that actually tried to do something. His biggest mistake, from what I have read, was that he tried to do the movie/nice thing "Drop the gun!" instead of just shooting the a^&hole.

It did disturb me that there were "several" people who did nothing but pull their guns. We don't however know the whole story. Could it be that they didn't have a clear shot and would have been more likely to have ended up shooting a bystander?

Click to expand...

Probably. Rule 4: always be sure of your target and your avenue of fire. Here in Texas, if I pull aconcealed handgunand drop the BG, but the bullet overpenetrates and injures a bystander, the fact that I was justified in shooting the BG, or that I probably saved dozens of lives, matters not one whit when the bystander files a personal injury lawsuit. The applicable section of the TPC states:

§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.

Click to expand...

Recklessness is defined in the TPC as:

§ 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES....
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Click to expand...

Murder, manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon all use this "reckless" standard. The prosecution will thus try to establish reckless intent, while I as the defendant will try to refute that claim.

The fact thatyou werejustified in shooting the BGis of no consequence in determining the justifiability of the risk to an innocent third party. Since TPC section 9 defines most justification for using deadly force, you are SERIOUSLY handicapped in arguing that the action was not reckless if you were aware that someone else was in the line of fire. You might attack any definition of a "reasonable standard of care" that the fictional "ordinary person" would have done, since being a CHL holder puts you in a class of people comprising approximately 1.5% of Texas residents;hardly "ordinary". You could claim that a high degree of marksmanship, as evidenced by your high IPSC/IDPA classification, your most recent range targets and/or your most recent CHL qual target, made the risk that you would miss unsubstantial, and also evidences a high standard of care in which you prepared for the possibility that a shot may be fired in anger.

In any case, if a third party is injured as a result of your fired shot, you WILL find yourself in a courtroom, and even if you are acquitted or found in favor of, you are liable for all legal costs. That's a lot of pressure that the scales measuring trigger pull don't seem to take into account.

imported post

In fact, the state even has an "open carry" law, in which gun owners can wear their weapons outside their clothing that may surprise you.

Click to expand...

If I was your typical non-gun owner, I would think, "really? Which RCW is that?". I don't think the average Joedifferentiates between laws following the legislative path and case law.

Josh Farley appears to be a blog-writer and not a reporter.The site isgenerating scripting errors as I write this, so I can't check the name. While there are many fine blogers who have turned up some interesting things,for me this tainted anything else that was written.

This is the first I have heard that anyone other that McKown pulled a weapon at the Tacoma Mall. In light of the reference to an open-carry law,this statement is suspect as well.

imported post

underthebridge wrote:

Josh Farley appears to be a blog-writer and not a reporter.

Click to expand...

He islisted asthe Kitsap Sun's "Public Safety and Courts Reporter". I don't know anything about him.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

underthebridge wrote:

Josh Farley appears to be a blog-writer and not a reporter.

Click to expand...

He islisted asthe Kitsap Sun's "Public Safety and Courts Reporter". I don't know anything about him.

Click to expand...

He looks to be about 16 years old in that picture.

imported post

Agent 47 wrote:

the idea that should their life ever be in danger the gun will magically spring to life and dispach the bad guys of its own accord.

Click to expand...

When you find a gun like this will you please let me know. :lol:

imported post

underthebridge wrote:

If I was your typical non-gun owner, I would think, "really? Which RCW is that?".

Click to expand...

I wonder if the typical non-gun owner is smart enough to know that laws are contained in the RCWs.

imported post

My comment:

Although a bit of a straw man, I think the problem with the assumption of argument number 2 above is obvious: no matter how many laws are on the books and no matter what their proscribed penalty, criminals will violate the law by their very definition. This is a good argument for concealed carry in general, but is especially applicable for arguing against "gun free zones" or, perhaps more appropriately, "victim rich zones." This is because the only people who care enough to obey the law are the ones who would not commit crimes and take the time to go through the Concealed Pistol License (CPL) application process. Often, victim rich zones are established by simple rules, not even laws, that do not carry any legal penalty. The person can only be asked to leave the business, college campus, etc. This lends even more weight to the argument that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" because there is not even a legal penalty, meaning a fine or jail time, unless the person refuses to leave the premises, as they would then be trespassing.

The argument for concealed carry is also logical when examined from an objective viewpoint of reason. This means emotion must be factored out of the equation. It is necessary to acknowledge that people are killed with guns and will continue to be as long as guns exist, just as people will be killed in car accidents as long as cars exist. However, it would be futile to attempt to ban and destroy all cars and the same holds true for firearms. Despite some firearms accidents, which are grossly over reported and exaggerated, John Lott shows in his research many more instances of lawful self-defense uses of firearms every year than there are accidents. Furthermore, CPL holders are statistically extremely unlikely to commit crimes, even less so than police officers in many cases and are often more accurate in identifying and neutralizing the correct target in self defense incidents than police officers (see these FBI statistics at http://www.concealedcampus.org).

Given that guns are a reality for us in the United States, we must find a way to deal with the issue of firearms and self-defense. The answer, I argue, is not to disarm those law-abiding citizens who feel the need to protect themselves while doing nothing (for the reasons above) to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I believe the answer is to let those law abiding citizens who would be armed, be armed! Armed citizens are not only able (and responsible and trained) to protect themselves and those around them, but also provide a deterrent effect against crime. Studies of criminals have shown that they choose the easy target, and are most likely to avoid potential victims whom they think are armed (also available on http://www.concealedcampus.org). According to statistics from crime studies (available at http://www.gunowners.org),the states with the least oppressive carry laws, namely Vermont and Alaska, also have some of the lowest crime and gun violence rates. Several states even allow those at least 18 years of age to obtain a CPL (most states have a 21 years of age requirement); even these states do not have excessively high rates of crime and firearm violence.

The fact is, there is no evidence showing the CPL holders are a danger to the public, even in states like Oregon where permit holders can carry in K-12 schools, and therefore no reason to keep them from being armed where they will. In all likelihood, every person passes at least one, if not more, armed people every day by just walking to work or shopping in the grocery store. As noted above, those who choose to carry guns in their everyday lives are proven to be a deterrent to crime, are able to respond to crime when it occurs, and are no danger to the public, unlike criminals who would be the only ones armed under many anti-gun lobby proposals.

[Edited to fix links]

imported post

Looks like with all the replies we gave to reporter Josh Farley's blog page, he is now looking to do a story on why folks carry. I've talked with him via email, and told him I'd put his request up here to see if any other folks from Kitsap or Mason county want to be interviewed (can be done by email if you like). The questions are fairly general, like why do you carry, when/what made you decide to get a cpl, where do you carry, etc.

The only thing he asks is to only find Kitsap and Mason
county carriers, because that's who his editors want him to interview.

You can contact Josh at:
jfarley@kitsapsun.com
Phone | 360.792.9227
Cell | 360.265.6732


Here is what he sent me originally:

----------------------------------------------------
Hi Spike,

My name's Josh Farley and I'm the crime and justice writer here at the
Kitsap Sun. I've been thinking a lot about the blog a lot of people
commented on regarding concealed pistol licenses.

I'm looking for a few people who live in Kitsap or Mason counties to
interview about why they carry -- and thought you'd be an excellent person.

If you might be interested, we could talk in person, on the phone or by
email. One last note: the idea of this story is to provide insight into why
people carry (not the politics of it).

Thanks,
Josh


--
Josh Farley | jfarley@kitsapsun.com
Reporter, Criminal Justice and Public Safety
The Kitsap Sun
Bremerton, WA
Phone | 360.792.9227
Cell | 360.265.6732
Visit the Crime and Justice Forum:
http://blogs.scripps.com/kitsap/crime/
----------------------------------------------------

imported post

Yeah, just replied to his email that he sent me.

imported post

in reading the linked PI article about the mall shooting, one of the commenters spoke about the potential lawsuits that could arise even if cleared of any criminal charges.

Doesn't RCW 9A.16.110 cover this?

No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense.

imported post

IANAL, but I think the term "legal jeopardy" means fines or confinement imposed by the State rather than damages awarded in a civil suit.

That said, I sure hope it does cover civil suits as well...

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

IANAL, but I think the term "legal jeopardy" means fines or confinement imposed by the State rather than damages awarded in a civil suit.

That said, I sure hope it does cover civil suits as well...

Click to expand...

It may not be a complete "shield" but makes an awfully good defense argument.