The First Bonehead - The

The First Bonehead - The anti-gun left smells blood. The fact that it's just ketchup escapes them and their pals, the media.

The Pioneer Press reported the story of a guy in north-suburban Anoka County who got into a stupid incident with a gun. Unmentioned in the story - it's the type of story that would have never been widely reported under normal circumstances; it's the type of thing that happens constantly in trailer parks and Frogtowns nationwide.

The only thing abnormal about these circumstances is that the guy has a newly-minted Concealed Carry permit.

An Anoka County man, who shot 11 bullets into the hood of his brother's car in an attempt to "kill" it, may be the first Minnesotan to have his gun permit suspended under a new state law that allows holders to carry handguns in most public places.

So far, so good. In fact, so far, exactly to specs; we concealed-carry supporters never said the law-abiding citizen was perfect - merely that he or she was, statistically, incredibly trustworthy. Joe Olson, of Concealed Carry Reform Now, commented accurately on the story's importance (near the veeeeery end of the PiPress' piece):

Joseph Olson, president of the Minnesota-based Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said, "No one ever claimed permit holders would be perfect." Information from other states shows that permit holders are more law-abiding than the population in general, Olson said.

"But there are always exceptions, and this gentleman is a moron," he said. "There will be people who will do stupid and illegal things and the law is set up so they lose their permits, which sounds like it worked just fine in this case."

Exactly. The guy screwed up - and is paying the consequences.

Of course, the anti-gun movement as manifested by Citizens for a Supine Safer Minnesota's Rebecca Thoman, see goblins in the dark:

[Thoman] said the case shows why her group opposed the law.

"This is an obvious case of a man turning to a gun in the heat of the moment," she said. "It also goes to the poor training that this law requires. It's not appropriate to use a gun to protect property. It wasn't a situation of his life being threatened."

The story - by Mara Gottfred et al - didn't mention that the guy did feel he was protecting lives; he was trying to shoot out the engine, to keep his drunk brother from going out on the freeway and endangering others. This, of course, is not allowed under Minnesota's paternalistic self-defense laws, where until recently one had a "duty to retreat" as far as possible before defending oneself (a provision that KSTP host Ron Rosenbaum says has been changed, although I've not been able to confirm that).

So what does this story tell us?

Only this: In a year that has featured a rising number of shootings carried out by "people" who do not qualify for carry permits - demi-human vermin who kill cabbies for money, who blast indiscriminately at drug-industry competitors on residential streets without regard for who's in the houses they're drilling, the Victim Disarmament movement is really desperate for some "good" news from its perspective its it's going to yap about this case.

Posted by Mitch at September 7, 2003 10:36 AM