Guns and employee wellness

My employer, as most do, has an Employee wellness program. The wellness program is a voluntary program that gets you a discount on your involuntary (thanks to Obamacare) employee insurance coverage.
Some employers are now saying that, if you refuse to participate in the wellness program, you will lose your employee heath insurance. How is this legal, you ask? After all, multiple Federal laws, including the ADA and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) state that this is not legal. Well, leave that to the Federal Courts:

Not so, said a federal judge in Madison, Wisc., who ruled on Dec. 31 that employers can deny coverage without violating the ADA as long as the data gleaned from the wellness program is used for purposes of overall health coverage.

This is where guns enter the picture. The anti gun forces in this country want to have firearms added as a public health issue. Now suppose this comes about and your employer wants to use data on gun ownership to enhance your overall health coverage.

Take this one step further: say your employer wants to say that gun ownership is a health hazard, and you must give up your guns or give up your employer sponsored health insurance. You would be forced (by Obamacare in concert with your employer) to have one of three options:

1 Give up your guns
2 Pay a $2100 "tax" each year for not having insurance, plus the full cost of your healthcare
3 Pay a minimum of about $3600 a year for a basic health plan that has a $6000 deductible

Florida Open Carry bill

The proposed bill that would permit open carry in Florida is still alive.

As usual, the anti gun forces come with their main tool: Lies and misdirection. One of the things that makes me laugh is this part of the story:

Marion Hammer, long-time lobbyist for the NRA in Tallahassee, said that without open-carry, concealed-weapons permit-holders “are in danger of being arrested and prosecuted like a criminal if your gun accidentally and unintentionally becomes exposed to the sight of another person.”
“I don’t want to be arrested if my jacket blows open and somebody sees my gun and calls police,” she said.
Hammer cited anecdotal cases, but no statistical data, about people who have been arrested for inadvertent open-carry. Gaetz acknowledged there's been a "small handful" of cases.

While earlier in the article, this was said:

Meanwhile, critics also worry that an open-carry law might be a deterrent for visitors, harm the state's tourism economy and tarnish Florida’s image as a family-friendly destination.

Which isn't even anecdotal, it is purely speculative.

Here is what one sheriff had to say about the proposal:

Some people want to be police officers, like George Zimmerman did. We don’t need George Zimmermans walking around with firearms exposed.

Except Zimmerman was fully in compliance with the law, as it stands to day, and as it is proposed. Open carry would not have changed this case one bit, because it had nothing to do with open carry.

Pro rights folks are required to provide mountains of actual evidence, while anti gun forces can respond unchallenged with hypothetical speculation that is based on the thinnest shred of popular tripe.

Winds of change

Recently, the theme of  training at my school has been a review of how teachers should be reacting to an active shooter. Our school resource officer was the instructor for the training. He had some interesting facts to share. For example he told us that my county, which is fairly rural, has three people living in it who have pledged their support for Isis.

He also provided a link to the FBI report (pdf warning) on active shooter incidents. It makes for interesting reading.

After the training was over, the floor was opened up for questions. The first question was asked by a math teacher, who wanted to know what the deputy thought of the proposed law that would allow teachers to carry weapons on campus. The deputy replied that he used to be opposed to citizens carrying weapons, because he feared that responding police officers might mistake an honest armed citizen with the shooter, and shoot the citizen by mistake. (The obvious hypocrisy here is stunning: so I shouldn't be allowed to carry because of your irresponsibility?) The deputy then went on to say that he has since changed his opinion, because the evidence is mounting that armed good guys are the key to defending against armed bad guys. He said that all of the active shooter incidents that he is aware of occurred in areas where the intended targets were unarmed.

The deputy also revealed that, should the law pass, they are looking at a system where selected teachers  would be trained and certified by the sheriff's office to carry weapons on school property. The sheriff's department will place locked, secure cabinets at strategic locations on campus. These lockers will be opened by fingerprint locks that are keyed to the authorized teachers' fingerprints, and will contain a handgun, spare magazines, and pale blue body armor with the word "Teacher" on the front and back. Responding deputies will be trained to look for the body armor before mistakenly blazing away at any armed people who aren't law enforcement officers. While I have several issues with this plan, this is much better than the "only one" attitudes that law enforcement has had in the past.

In the group discussion that followed, another teacher at my table spoke up and said that this idea made her nervous, because she didn't think that a teacher having a gun around children was a good idea, because in a shooting confrontation, this children could be hit in the crossfire. I sarcastically told her that I agreed, because after all, it would be better to have the shooter lining the children up and shooting them 20 at a time without having to worry about people shooting at him. The other teachers at the table laughed. Ridiculing these stupid ideas is, in my opinion, the best way to shut the idiots up.

Winds of change, indeed.

Truth o meter tells lies

A Florida lawmaker advocating for a law that would allow teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms claimed that school shootings happen in gun free zones, and used the shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College as an example. He stated that this college was a gun free zone.

Truth o meter from Politifact called him a liar. What did they use as the basis for this lie?

The school’s student code of conduct lists the "possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms," among other weapons and dangerous chemicals or devices, on college property or at college-sponsored events as a punishable offense. There’s a similar policy spelled out on Umpqua’s website.
The clause "without written authorization" is important.
There is a policy prohibiting guns at Umpqua Community College, as Steube said. But students are allowed to have guns on campus if they have a concealed carry permit — essentially what Steube’s HB 4001 wants to codify in Florida.

That talking point can be found all over the liberal media. So who is correct?

It turns out that the anti gun forces are stretching the truth here.

In 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System's longstanding ban of firearms on college campuses, allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring weapons on university grounds.
The following year, the Oregon Senate considered a bill that would have again prohibited the carrying of guns onto school, college, or university grounds in the state. That legislation lost by a single vote.
The day after the vote, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education took up the issue, setting a policy that allows guns on campus, but bars them from college buildings and sporting venues. Umpqua Community College upholds this ban, making an allowance for those "expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

This is where even Florida law stands: In Florida, a concealed weapons permit holder can have a weapon in his car on school grounds, but cannot have the weapon inside the building. When a shooter is rampaging through my school, the pistol that is in my car 200 yards away from my classroom is useless.

As usual, the anti gunners have only one tool in the tool box: lies.

In France

This article about a French Jeweler, who was being beaten at gunpoint during a robbery, is in jail for shooting the robber has a neat little factoid in it:

In a country where gun violence is rare but armed robbery is increasingly common, the shooting - and the formal charges of voluntary homicide - have placed the government in a difficult position.

 So armed robbery isn't gun violence? I thought that maybe the armed robbery was with a weapon other than a firearm, but no:

The robbery was carried out with a shotgun, he said. It wasn't clear whether Asli and the accomplice both had firearms.

In fact, the article is filled with examples of firearm robberies. That can't be. You see, the anti-gun crowd here in the US tells us that there is no gun crime in Europe because guns are illegal. 

Yet the sister of the 19-year-old who was killed says Turk shot him in the back and deserves prison.

"He shot a kid in the back. He's a traitor, he's a coward," said Alexandra Asli, his older sister.

Asli, who was shot dead in the street outside the jewelry store, had been convicted 14 times in juvenile court, according to Eric Bedos, the Nice prosecutor.

It seems that outlawing guns does indeed ensure that only outlaws will have guns.

Half an hour can last forever

Thirty minutes. That is how long the shooter in DC had to kill before police caught up with him. It was seven minutes before the first cops even entered the building. This is not a criticism of police, it's just that they cannot be everywhere. I feel like they did what they could, and did it well. You are responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. Own a gun, and learn how to use it. Thirty minutes can be the rest of your life.

More on the Louisiana shooting

I posted yesterday about a man that shot a teen that had scaled a 5 foot tall fence to enter the shooter's driveway, was confronted by the homeowner, and was shot. The homeowner, who was standing next to his back door, states that he told the intruder to freeze, the intruder (who has a history of burglaries and thefts) turned toward the homeowner with his hand in his waistband, and was shot. Here is a picture of the driveway:

The state has charged the homeowner with attempted second degree murder. In Louisiana, there are only four ways that the state can prove second degree murder. Two of them have to do with the sale of drugs, and don't apply here. A third involves death as a result of a violent felony, and also doesn't apply. The final way involves a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. In other words, they have to prove that he intended to severely injure or kill when he shot the lad.

One would think that the act of shooting someone in itself proves intent, but that is not the case. A killing can not be second degree murder if the shooter possessed a belief that he must use deadly force in self-defense, even if that belief turns out to be unreasonable, rather than the intentional mental state of committing a murder. Like the Zimmerman case, prosecutors are overcharging what is clearly a manslaughter case, ar the most.

This is a common tactic for prosecutors: Overcharge, and push for a plea deal. If the person doesn't take a plea, they must defend against the charge, and all of the lesser included charges. These two cases illustrate for me the need to do away with lesser included charges. I think that prosecutors should file the charge that the person is likely guilty of, instead of overcharging and hoping that a lesser charge sticks.

Anyway, the homeowner will likely use Louisiana's self defense statute as a defense.

Use of force or violence in defense

A.  The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B.  For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1)  The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2)  The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C.  A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D.  No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry. (emphasis added)

Note that the law states that the force must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, but does not explicitly limit the degree of force to non-deadly force.The law also states that a person lawfully in his residence can use force, if he holds a reasonable belief that force is required to prevent a break in, as long as two conditions are met: The person must be in the process of entering the residence, and must have reason to believe that an unlawful entry was occurring.

The presence of an unknown person immediately outside your backdoor at 2:00AM,where the intruder was required to scale a fence, would seem to allow a reasonable belief that an unlawful entry into the dwelling was occurring or about to occur.

Again, I think that this is a lawful shoot, but that will likely get me called a barbarian and a racist, like I was yesterday for my Zimmerman and Alexander opinions.

The rest of the story

Anti-gun forces and race baiters are trying to use the case of a black woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a "warning shot" at her reportedly abusive husband in contrast to the Zimmerman/Martin case as proof that blacks are being discriminated against under the law in Florida. Of course, the facts don't support this, but anti-gunners and race baiters never let the facts get in the way when they are trying to score points.

Background 

Marissa Alexander was married to her (I think second) husband. The man she was married to had reportedly been abusive to a previous woman. They had been dating for approximately three years, and she claimed in September of 2009 that he had battered her. Nevertheless, they were married on May 14, 2010. Shortly thereafter, she obtained a domestic violence restraining order, and that order was in effect at the time of the shooting on August 1, 2010. In fact, she had not been living in the home since June of 2010. She was pregnant at the time of the marriage and separation, and gave birth to a baby sometime during the last half of July, 2010.

The events leading up to the shooting

On July 31, 2010, Ms. Alexander signed out of the hospital and left her newborn baby there, and arrived at the marital home, a home that she had not lived in for over two months, and where her husband lived with his two sons from a previous marriage. The husband that she was so afraid of that she sought a restraining order against. She parked her car in the garage, and entered the home. She spent the night.

The next morning, the husband arrived home with his two sons and entered through the garage to find his estranged wife there. He cooked breakfast, and they all ate. After breakfast, Ms. Alexander handed her phone to her husband, so that he could see pictures of the newborn child that was still in the hospital, and then entered the bathroom. While she was in the bathroom, her husband found evidence in the phone that she had a continuing relationship with her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander (whose last name she chose to keep) and questioned her as to the paternity of the child. A verbal argument ensued, and the husband told his sons to get dressed, and that they were leaving the home.

The shooting

Ms. Alexander went to the garage where her car was parked. She claims that she tried to leave, but that the door would not open. There is no evidence to back up the claim that the door was inoperable. She retrieved a gun from the car, and reentered the house through the kitchen, and pointed the gun at her husband, who raised his hands in surrender. She then shot at him, and struck the wall next to his head. The bullet went through the wall, and entered the ceiling of the adjacent living room.

The husband and the 2 children fled to the back yard and called 911. The woman was arrested.

The aftermath

Ms. Alexander posted bail, and was ordered as a condition of her release that she have no contact with her husband or his children. She made contact with them anyway, and tried to convince them to lie at their deposition, to protect her. The husband changed his testimony to protect her, and was caught doing so. He later admitted that he had changed his testimony to help Alexander avoid prison.

In December, Alexander drove to the new house where her husband and his two children had moved after the shooting. That was when she attacked the husband, giving him a black eye, because he would not allow her to stay the night. She was again arrested and her bond was revoked.

Hardly self defense. she deserved every one of the 20 years that she got.

Here is my source.

Here we go again

Another black choirboy who has been arrested multiple times for burglary is shot while trying to burglarize a man's house, this time in New Orleans. He was seen by others in the neighborhood earlier in the evening, riding his bicycle with another black teen, apparently casing the neighborhood. The people were afraid to call police, because they didn't want to be accused of racism.

The person shot was a 14 year old with a criminal history:

Marshall Coulter, who had been on medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder, was awaiting trial for "stealing stuff," his brother said.
"He would steal -- he was a professional thief, sure," David Coulter said. "But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he'll ever pick up a gun, he'll be your friend first.

Who was caught on a security camera entering the fenced yard of a home, and leaving a second black youth on the street as a lookout.
Here is a picture of the "sweet, innocent, 14 year old boy" that was shot:

People, locking their doors and afraid to go outside because criminals own our neighborhoods and our streets. If you go outside, and are confronted by a person not of your race, you have to take a chance and let them rob you while praying that they are not armed and won't decide to kill you. If you decide to defend yourself, the government will take everything from you and from your family. They will destroy you.

I predict a coming backlash against minorities, and a coming race war.

EDITED TO ADD: Here is a link to another article on the shooting.

Foolish opinion of armed citizens

Many anti gun people claim that there is no way that an armed citizen could resist the modern US military, armed with fighter jets, machine guns, and armored vehicles. Of course, they are right. It would be foolish for a solitary gun owner to "take on a platoon of Marines." However, to think that this is how it would go down is to be ignorant of history.

In 1776, the British Army was large, well equipped, and had not been beaten on the field of battle in generations. The Colonists were a guerrilla force of lightly armed farmers and shop keepers. How, then did this group of shopkeepers win a war when they were so outmatched?

They changed the rules. At the time, the rules of war were such that shooting officers was deliberately avoided when firing weapons. The theory of the say was that the men were savages, and the officers were gentlemanly enough to prevent a greater slaughter by keeping the men under control. The targeting of officers was just not done. The colonist militia men hid from incoming fire, and deliberately targeted the officers.

On top of that, Washington raised a navy of privateers (legalized pirates) that raided incoming British supplies.

Thus, by attacking the British where they were weak, and avoiding them where they were strong, they managed to hand the British army and navy a stunning defeat, and win their independence in the process.

This is the question that any citizen militia that is trying to win freedom against a larger, better equipped force must answer: Where is the enemy the weakest, and where are our strengths?

The citizen militia's strength lies in the fact  that the government cannot possibly know who they all are, and will have problems rounding them up. The government in this case will attempt to identify and cull the ringleaders. The militia would be foolish indeed to muster on the battlefield and open themselves up to attack by the larger, well equipped force.

Instead, the wise militia commander will attack weak points: Leaders, the factory workers where equipment is made, electric distribution that powers factories, the political masters, and other soft targets. This accomplishes a few objectives:
- It causes the larger force to devote a portion of their own military forces to security operations, and cuts the size of operational forces.
- Attrition of supplies. If the factory that makes the oil filter that your armored vehicles' engines require is burned down, the tanks become stationary pill boxes.
- Demoralizes the leadership. If you are a despotic ruler, and you and your cabinet are facing possible attacks, you tend to be a bit more circumspect when moving forces around.

History is full of examples of one motivated individual changing the course of a nation, armed only with a personal weapon. To think that technology makes this impossible is to be foolishly arrogant.

No weapons on campus

This is the weekend before midterms. There are many students that are practically living in the cadaver labs in preparation for the tests. I myself spent 5 hours there yesterday, and 4 this morning. There was an incident at the school that really irritates me. When I went in yesterday, I noticed that the lounge that we used had been trashed. There were things torn from the walls, and general vandalism. The other students told me that there had been a "scruffy looking" guy in there (and his face around the nose and mouth was covered in blue paint) when they arrived at 7 a.m., but that he ran away when challenged. Found in there were a number of stolen goods, including a television, food, and other personal items. Security was called and they took a report.
I stayed until 2 o'clock and left. Shortly after that, the guy returned. Security came again, and he fought with them, they pepper sprayed him, and he ran. They caught him several blocks away. There has been a campus safety notice advising us not to be in the building alone, as they do not know if he had accomplices. (Great, the weekend before midterms).
Of course the school has a "no weapons" policy, violation of which will get you expelled. I am sure that the dirtbags will follow that policy as well as they have the "no stealing" the "no trespassing" the "no vandalizing" the "no huffing paint" and the "no treating the school as a drug den/homeless shelter" policies, which carry the penalty of a warm place to stay and several hot meals.
The people who oppose campus carry frequently use the excuses:
- A gun distracts from the learning environment. I find it hard to believe that me having a concealed weapon will distract from the learning environment more than being attacked simply because I am alone studying in the lab.
- College students are immature, irresponsible drunkards. I am 44 years old, a graduate student, and in less than a year's time I will be writing prescriptions and making decisions about people's lives and health. If I am too immature and drunk to carry a gun, how can I be a health provider?
- You could use pepper spray instead. First- pepper spray is also prohibited, and note that the assailant RAN several blocks AFTER being pepper sprayed by security. If that were a young lady using that pepper spray, and he felt like fighting, how much good would that spray do?

The biology of self control, part 2

This is a continuation of the post on the physiological origins of self control and criminals. For the first part, click here.

The next neurotransmitter that is important is Serotonin. Serotonin is not capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, so the brain must produce all that it needs. Serotonin is produced by converting an amino acid called tryptophan into Serotonin. (Serotonin is also used for other purposes in other parts of the body, but that is not within the scope of this post.)

Serotonin is the chemical that causes us to feel loved, safe, and comfortable. This is why meals high in tryptophan are called comfort foods. This is also how the drug Ecstasy (MDMA) works. That drug causes a massive release of Serotonin from your neurons. Long term use of MDMA actually causes a decrease in Serotonin, though, as the cells that produce it begin to "burn out." Various other drugs that are centrally acting also work on Serotonin and its receptors, like SSRIs.

When we do what we know that we are supposed to do, the frontal lobe rewards us with a rush of Serotonin. This is the brain's reward system for good behavior. The Midbrain rewards pleasurable behavior with Dopamine. The balance between the two is the way our behavior is controlled: Midbrain rewards us for pleasure seeking, the Frontal Lobe rewards us for controlling our bad behavior. Most people are fairly balanced between the two, and mostly seek out pleasurable but good behavior.

There are things that can upset this balance:
A mother who exposes her unborn child to alcohol can damage the frontal lobe, and giver birth to a child with impulsive and unsocial behavior. Remember hearing about how the prenatal exposure to alcohol affects the corpus callosum? That's the membrane between the left brain and the right brain that passes information between the two hemispheres of the brain. The corpus callosum of kids with fetal alcohol syndrome is damaged, and in some cases it is absent. This is very similar to what happens when a "normal" person drinks alcohol. After a few drinks, alcohol shuts down the left side of the frontal lobe, which no longer functions the way it should and this suppresses the frontal lobe, causing the person to act on impulse, disregarding consequences, and seek more reward from the Midbrain. A person will act to do things, even  when they know that it is wrong and will cause them trouble in the end. With long term alcohol and drug use, this condition becomes a permanent dysfunction.

Since much of this is biochemical and not conscious thought, people with frontal lobes that are damaged by congenital defects or drug use have no way of stopping this behavior.

That brings us back to recognizing a person's potential for becoming a killer. We can look for people who:
 - chronically use alcohol or drugs,
- have displayed a history of not producing enough Serotonin. They are easy to recognize, as they have problems controlling their impulsive behavior (in other words- criminal records). However, this only is a reliable indicator if the criminal KNEW that what he was doing was wrong. After all, the person must know it is the wrong thing to do, if the frontal lobe is to be expected to control the impulse.
- Identifying others who have problems with their impulse control center. This suggests that there may be a test that can be performed that will indicate a person's proclivity for committing crimes, which may mean that there is a medical solution for some criminals.

You also can see why gun control has little effect. The criminal is a criminal because his brain doesn't stop him from committing acts that he knows are wrong. He knows it is illegal to rob someone, but he doesn't care. He knows as a convicted criminal that it is wrong for him to own a gun, but doesn't care.

On the other side of that, a man convicted of an obscure felony like owning more than 5 sex toys is not a threat to public safety and is unlikely to commit a crime with a firearm, as his impulse control is most probably fully functional.

Killers, biology, and control

There are always people who think that keeping people from owning guns is the answer to preventing murder. These people say that anyone is capable of being a criminal, and therefore guns are too dangerous for anyone but cops and the military. Others say that there is no way to predict who will be a killer, but is this true? Why do people become criminals, addicts, or killers? The answer is in our brains.

The neurological system of human beings is controlled by chemicals called neurotransmitters. The brain manufactures more than 60 different neurotransmitters that are responsible for everything we do from breathing, to pupil contractions, and even our thoughts and emotions. For the purposes of emotion and this discussion, there are three that we are talking about: Dopamine, Serotonin, and Norepinephrine.

Everything that we do that brings us pleasure involves Dopamine. If it makes you happy, Dopamine is the chemical that is responsible. The nervous system uses dopamine as the reward for good behavior. Serotonin is the love and comfort chemical. This neurotransmitter gives us our feelings of belonging, self-confidense, and calm. Norepinephrine is responsible for the "4 F's" (feeding, fleeing, fighting, and f*cking).

In the human brain, there are components that control our emotions and behaviors without our conscious control. Among these is the midbrain. A small area of the midbrain called the Substantia Nigra makes dopamine, and passes that reward through a structure called the nucleus accumbens, past the frontal lobe, and to the rest of the brain. Since the midbrain is out of our conscious control, there are no ethics or morals involved in this level of control, this is pure instinct. In this way, the midbrain causes us to do whatever brings us pleasure.

We can exhibit a certain amount of control by utilizing the frontal lobe of the brain to interdict some of these impulsive, hedonistic impulses. You see, the frontal lobe of the brain is where our sense of morals, self control,  and duty originate. In children and young adults (up to about age 25) this area of the brain is not yet fully developed, and this is why people in that age group do stupid and irresponsible things.

In addition, various genetic and environmental factors either damage or prevent the development of this part of the brain. Individuals that do not have a fully developed frontal lobe have little self-control, no sense of right and wrong, and no morals. In short, they are out of control criminals.


Part two of this post can be found here.

The gun question

As you know if you have been reading this blog, I am in school to earn my Masters Degree and become a Physician Assistant. We were recently in a class on how to conduct an exam, and were talking about the questions that we are required to ask a patient. One of the questions that they said we are required to ask is whether or not they own a gun, and whether or not that gun is kept in a secure location. Then we should use this as an opportunity to talk to them about the dangers of having a firearm in the home. I spoke up and said that I did not feel like that was a valid medical question, and the answer that I got was that this was about safety.

I then pointed out that we shouldn't stop there. After all, if this is about safety, why not ask them if they are gay, and of so, lecture them on the dangers of homosexual activity? Of course, the reaction I got was how inappropriate that was. I pointed out that more people die each year from AIDS than are murdered by firearms.

I then asked if I would be penalized in any way for refusing to participate in a politically charged topic like this. They relented, and I will not be penalized in any way for refusing to ask that question.

Interesting conversation

I had a conversation in a bar last night that I found to be interesting. I was sitting in a local beer joint having some wings and IPA with another grad student when the subject of guns came up. He told me that although he is from Illinois, he routinely carries a handgun for protection. That is interesting, I say, because Illinois remains the only state in the USA that does not allow this, and you need a permit to even own a gun, and permits to carry guns are non-existent. He told me that the only way he would get caught is if he had to use that gun to defend his life, and in that case, he would worry about the ramifications then.

Now understand that this particular grad school is not for slackers or troublemakers. The school won't even look at your application if your undergrad GPA is less than 3.3 and your criminal history is a blank slate. Not only that, without giving any of this guy's details away, he is a very upstanding guy, and his resume would certainly not place him in the category of 'troublemaker."

Gun control has failed as a philosophy. Some folks just haven't accepted that, yet.

A peek into police culture

I was recently required to go to a class on the incident management system. The class was comprised of about 60% police supervisors and 40% fire supervisors. The class gave me an opportunity for some insight into the way that cops (especially the supervisors) view the world.

The class presented the supervisors with a few scenarios, and challenged those supervisors to set up a command structure that would adequately manage the situation. Since this was a class attended mostly by cops and was being taught by cops, the scenarios and the conversations were mostly cop-centric. It was a learning experience, but perhaps not in the way that was intended.

The first scenario was that a child services worker was doing a well being check on a home, after receiving a tip that one of the children in the home was being sexually molested by the father. When she arrived at the home, she found that the father was home alone with 3 children, ages 9 through 14, and he was intoxicated. The social worker told the father that she was removing the children from the home, because the only adult was intoxicated. The father refused, an argument ensued, and the social worker was asked to leave. Social worker attempts to take the youngest child with her, and is shot in the stomach by the father. Socail worker staggers outside and 911 is called.

The cops said that this is an active shooter situation, and their primary objective is to enter the home as soon as they have three officers present, and "take out the bad guy." I am betting that they were not talking about shooting the social worker.

After this first scenario, we took our first break. The topic of discussion during the break was how the "new NRA law" was stupid and creating problems for police. One of the cops said that they tried to work with the NRA, but that the "gun nuts" were being uncooperative and would not give an inch. Another used an example (paraphrasing, my memory isn't perfect)
"There is this guy who has been "Baker Acted" several times, and has even fired shots at police officers. We were at his house, and he has guns. Now normally, I would just take the guns, and he would never see them again. Thanks to this new law, this guy keeps the guns. Now I am forced to risk leaving the guns there and getting sued when he shoots someone, or taking the guns, and getting sued by the NRA."
Third cop says: "The odds of being sued by the NRA are low. I'm still going to take them."

There are a number of false assumptions there, but it seems to me that if a person has shot at cops, wouldn't he be convicted of at least one felony and thus be prohibited from firearm possession?
If he was found to be a danger to himself or others after being Baker Acted, wouldn't a court have found him incompetent, and wouldn't he then be prohibited from owning firearms?
Why does a cop think that he has the power to confiscate private property, simply because he thinks he is the "only one" that is trained and competent to handle firearms?

Head in the sand policy of Osceola County

Florida Law Enforcement agencies have long followed a policy of denying the existence of gangs in the state, even though it is at odds with the opinion of the Florida Attorney General's office [pdf alert] Florida police agencies say gang members use any information released about the crimes they commit to glamorize their lifestyles and attract new members. The Osceola County Sheriff's Office generally follows that policy.

That policy, it seems, is failing.Hardly a day goes by when there is not a reported shooting in the Central Florida area, and many other violent crimes go unreported. Due to the long standing policy of ignoring gang related crimes, it is impossible to get an accurate picture of gang related crime in the area, but I can tell you from personal experience that it is growing.

The frequency of gang related graffiti is growing, as is the frequency of gang member sightings. The Outlaws Motorcycle gang has a clubhouse not far from where I live. A couple of friends of mine were recently riding their motorcycles and were stopped by five Outlaws, who told them that no one is allowed to ride motorcycles in the area as a part of any motorcycle riding club, unless that riding club paid dues to the Outlaws. They then demanded that my friends remove the leather jackets, and pay a fine of $50 cash on the spot. Outnumbered 5-2 by armed gang members, they paid.

The Latin Kings have staked out Poinciana as their territory, as well as parts of Kissimmee. The Bloods own other parts of Kissimmee. Saint Cloud has problems with white gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood. Orlando has similar gang and violent crime problems.

Your odds of being a victim of a violent crime in Osceola County are 1 in 100. In Orange County, the odds double to 1 in 50.Obviously, there are things you can do to reduce those odds. Don't go into bad neighborhoods like Pine Hills (aka Crime Hills), Paramore, McLaren Circle, Waterway Village, and other notoriously unsafe areas. Don't be a gang member, sell drugs, or engage in other highly risky behavior.

It is more likely that you will be a victim of a violent crime than involved in a car crash or a house fire with a fatality.You don't hesitate to wear a seat belt, or own smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and other safety devices, yet the odds favor your using a firearm to defend your life more often than any of those other items.

Just call 911

Just call 911. That is the advice that people give when they tell you that only cops and the military should own guns. Tell that to the woman in this trial.

She tried to call 911, but he tore the phone from her hands and smashed it. He then tore off her pants and raped her. After he was done violating the woman, he robbed her and forced her to go for a ride. Asked what she had thought during the assault and its aftermath, the woman told transfixed jurors, "I kept thinking, 'I don't want to die. I don't want to be one of those people who just disappears and their family can never find.'"

The rapist had been arrested 18 previous times in Lake County, including once for sexual battery at age 14, and had only been released from a 14 month stay in prison 5 days before he commited this crime.

A firearm is the only weapon that places a smaller woman on an equal footing with a larger, stronger male opponent. If this woman would have had one, perhaps she would have been able to protect herself. Or do you feel that a rapist's life is too important? When this man eventually gets out, will he kill someone?

Decision point, part two

Margret Puig Durinick was being attacked by her husband, Christopher Edward Durinick. She ran to her neighbor's house, and pounded on the front door of the home of neighbor Leo English, and begged for help. That was when the husband shot his wife once from less than 100 feet away. She collapsed in English's front doorway. English drew his revolved and returned fire, striking the man in the abdomen (not a bad shot for a handgun- 100 feet, at night). The wounded husband returned home, where he killed himself.

Police stated that English's actions are not what they recommend people do when faced with a dangerous situation, but that he is not being investigated. Morons. A man murders a woman in front of you, and you are now faced with a murderer who is armed with a rifle. He is less than 100 feet away, and has just killed someone in front of you. As a witness, odds are high that you are next. What do the police recommend that you do? I'm sorry, but that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say.

Preemption

There are two things I noticed today, and both of them are related:   

First

Today, I was in Saint Cloud and decided to stop by the Orlando Utilities Commission office that is there, in order to pay my bill. The office is inside City Hall. Just inside the door of the OUC office is a security guard who is armed with a Glock handgun. (I am assuming a 9mm, since that and .38Spl are the only calibers that armed guards can carry under state law.)

Just behind the security guard, there is a sign on the wall that reads "No weapons, firearms, or knives with a blade greater than 3.5 inches are permitted inside." (or words to that effect- I will get pictures next time, if possible)

According to the OUC website:

OUC-The Reliable One is a municipal utility owned by the citizens of Orlando. It provides electricity and water services to customers in Orlando, St. Cloud, and parts of Orange and Osceola counties.

Second

This story was running on the local cable news channel:

Anyone who visits the Osceola County Administration building will now have to go through a metal detector. Osceola County Commissioner John Quinones said it's in response to both local tensions and recent national incidents.

 I am not sure if the entire building requires entry, or just the Commission chambers, as the actual press release implies that the magnetometers will only be used for commission meetings.

Why these two stories are important:

The state legislature passed 790.33 some years ago, which states:

Except as expressly provided by general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or regulations relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances are hereby declared null and void. (emphasis added)

The law goes on to say:

It is the intent of this section to provide uniform firearms laws in the state; to declare all ordinances and regulations null and void which have been enacted by any jurisdictions other than state and federal, which regulate firearms, ammunition, or components thereof; to prohibit the enactment of any future ordinances or regulations relating to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof unless specifically authorized by this section or general law; and to require local jurisdictions to enforce state firearms laws. (emphasis added)

 So, a county that prohibits firearm possession in a county administration building cannot prohibit CCW holders from possession weapons, unless that building is a police station, jail, a meeting of the legislative body, or a school administrative building. The OUC office in City hall, and the general administrative offices of Osceola county do not fit any of those restrictions, therefore the sign and the magnetometers are in violation of state law.

It seems like government offices state wide are beginning to react to the school board shooting in Bay County and to the shooting in Arizona by violating the law themselves. We need to watch this, and do what we can to bring them into compliance with the law.