How to Shoot: The Time They Spent at the Range May Have Saved Her Life.

Dramatic 911 audio captured the moment a 47-year-old Arizona woman shot an intruder after he had broken into her home and allegedly attacked her.

The woman, identified as Cynthia, says her husband made sure to teach her how to shoot before he died. Her gun knowledge came in very handy. When she heard someone trying to break into her home, she immediately grabbed her gun and took a defensive position in the bathroom.

When the intruder, Michael Lewis, got inside, he allegedly physically attacked the woman and forced her to defend herself. He’s lucky to be alive.

The Arizona Republic provides a transcript of the intense 911 audio released by police on Wednesday:

“They’ve tried my front door, my front door, and now they’re trying to break in my back gate…,” Cynthia tells the 911 operator at one point. “I have a gun in my hands. I’m terrified.”

Later, “Somebody is on my back porch.” And then, “Please help me, please!” as the operator assures her that help is on the way.

“They’re coming out as fast as they can,” the operator says. “Have you heard any voices?”

Cynthia: “Hurry, hurry! They’re coming in right now, please, please, please!

As it turns out, the police weren’t coming quickly enough. Lewis broke into the bathroom and started attacking Cynthia. So she shot him.

Lewis: “Ow! (Expletive.) What was that? What was that? What was that? (Expletive) did you do?”

Her answer was classic. “Did you think you could beat me half to death?”

Lewis: “I’m sorry. I’m sorry…”

Cynthia: “You bet you’re sorry you nasty thing.”

Lewis has been in the hospital for about a month after being shot, but he will appear before a judge for sentencing next month.

Listen to the audio here:

Chicago’s crime rate has dropped since Illinois became the 50th state in the nation to adopt a concealed carry law last year, the Washington Times reported.

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy attributed the decrease to “intelligent policing strategies” and said cops confiscated more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first quarter of the year.Robberies are down 20 percent this year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Burglaries are also down 20 percent, while motor vehicle thefts are down 26 percent.

But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said it’s clear to him what’s driving the decrease — and it’s not the police. He said the department “hasn’t changed a single tactic.”

“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” Pearson told the Times.

By July 29, Illinois had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses, the Times reported. Pearson predicted that 100,000 Illinois citizens will have concealed carry permits by the end of 2014.

Individual permits cost about $600 with 16 hours of classes required. Despite the hurdles, Pearson expects that about 300,000 state residents will ultimately have permits before the increase levels off.

Cook County, which includes Chicago, has the state’s largest number of concealed carry applications, with 28,552 requests, but per capita population, fewer than 1 percent in the county have permits.

The Crime Prevention Research Center found in a July study that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. The center estimated that after concealed carry laws were passed, homicide and other violent crime decreased by 22 percent.

Florida has the most concealed carry permits, at nearly 1.3 million, according to the Times. Texas is second, with more than 708,000. Hawaii has the least, at just 183.

If Pearson’s projection of 300,000 concealed carry permits proves correct, Illinois would be comparable to Virginia, which has 363,274 permits, and Alabama, which has 379,917 permits.

‘Don’t Point That F***ing Gun at Me!’: Open Carry Activist Takes a Bold Stand Against County Ordinance… and Wins

His walk in the park was no walk in the park, so to speak, but a Wisconsin man’s public stand against unlawful open-carry restrictions seems to be having the desired effect: his county is changing its policy.

The man, Bill Polster, recorded himself on a walk through Calumet County Park last month while he carried two guns, and after 10 minutes, he was confronted by law enforcement.

Polster swears near the beginning of the encounter as he realizes one of the officers is aiming a rifle at him.

“Don’t point that f***ing gun at me!” he yells. ”He’s got a gun pointed at me, that’s bulls***!”

The other officer tells Polster that county ordinance prohibits carrying loaded firearms through the park, and while Polster is able to cite state laws that should supersede the county rules, the officer nevertheless takes and unloads both of Polster’s weapons.

The officer winds up giving Polster a warning for the incident.

Content warning: strong language

After video of the incident was posted to YouTube, county officials met, reviewed the rules and decided that the county ordinance would need to be updated to comply with state law, WLUK-TV reported.

And while the new ordinance — which is expected to ban hunting in the park but allow open carry — won’t be drawn up until September, Chief Deputy Brett Bowe of the Calumet County Sheriff’s Office told WLUK that the sheriff’s department would not enforce the old blanket ban.

“Obviously there is no hunting in the county park,” Bowe said. “Those were covered under that ordinance. We’re going to have to redo that ordinance to cover those specifically while allowing open-carry.”

And while Polster said the officers who confronted him could have handled the situation better (and he also apologized for his own swearing, saying he was “not proud of the vulgarity”), Bowe defended his officers’ work.

“They handled the incident appropriately,” Bowe said, adding, “Once [Polster] understood what we were doing, he was cooperative with that, and we handled it right there.”

If the county goes through with the ordinance change, halting open-carry is a situation police won’t have to handle again.

 

Responding to an explosion in violent crime in Harnett County, North Carolina, Sheriff Larry Rollins told about 130 residents at a community meeting on Monday that they need to “be able to take care of business” until police arrive.

To put it bluntly, Rollins wants his residents to be armed and ready to protect themselves and their families.

“I do not go anywhere without a gun,” the sheriff told residents at Spring Hill Methodist Church in Lillington, North Carolina, on Monday.

“I want my deputies to be at your house just as fast as they possibly can when you have a problem,” he added. “But you better be able to take care of business before we get there if you need to protect your family.”

As WRAL-TV reports, a number of alarming violent crimes were addressed at the meeting:

• Raquan Shynell Hooker, 18, Maurice Shaquan Williams, 23, and Maurice Kollis Cox, 27, were shot outside a Kangaroo gas station on N.C. Highway 87 in Cameron Friday afternoon. No arrests were announced as of Monday.

• Hours later, Jeffrey George, 21, was seriously injured after crashing while fleeing from police. George led authorities on the vehicle pursuit after selling drugs to an undercover officer, officials said. He crashed on U.S. Highway 421 near Marners Road.

• The body of Eric Kentrall Staten, 18, was found behind dumpsters on Saturday at a business at 6761 Ray Road in Spring Lake. No arrests were announced as of Monday.

The spike in violent crime has left the community fearing for their safety, concerns that their sheriff is clearly taking seriously.

WTVD-TV has more!

A police officer in Helmetta, New Jersey, is reportedly under investigation after he was caught on video telling a man that because President Barack Obama has “decimated” the Constitution, he no longer has to comply with the founding document.

The incident began as resident Steve Wronko brought a camera inside a municipal building while “investigating” alleged problems with the Helmetta Animal Shelter. A police officer, identified as Richard Recine, eventually stopped Wronko and demanded to know who he was and what he was doing filming in the building.

The cop’s shocking comments came as Wronko repeatedly cited his First Amendment rights, saying the amendment permits him to video record in a public building without being suspected of committing a crime. He brought up various case case law while trying to convince the officer on the issue.

“Obama has decimated the friggin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn,” Officer Recine said. “Because if he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution, we don’t have to.”

“Did you get that?!” the stunned man asked the young teen reportedly recording the conversation.

“That’s the law of the land, you have to follow it,” Wronko told the cop.

“Then you tell [Obama] that,” Recine replies.

Later in the video, Police Director Robert Manney shows up and tells Wronko that he will have to leave if he’s being disruptive. He also heard telling Wronko that he is required to tell police what he is doing inside a public building.

Wronko was escorted out of the building a short time later.

“Either get out, or you’re going to get locked up,” Manney is heard saying.

However, upon learning about one of his officer’s comments about the Constitution, Manney said on Wednesday that the comments were “uncalled for and unprofessional.” He also said an investigation should be concluded quickly because “the evidence is right there.”

“I’ve already spoken to that officer in regards to that. In my opinion, it’s an embarrassment,” Manney said, according to the Home News Tribune.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) offered the amendment to the House appropriations bill which directly controls the spending for D.C., and the freshman representative saw this as a finite window to address gun rights.

“The genesis was the opportunity — it was a limitation amendment on the appropriations bill. This amendment process gives rank and file members the opportunity to introduce legislation if they can’t get it to the floor through committee, so this was an opportunity for me to bring up the gun issue,” Massie told TheBlaze.

During his floor speech, Massie noted the startling gun violence statistics in the nation’s capitol.

“There is only one year after D.C.’s handgun ban went into effect in 1977 where its murder rate was as low as it was prior to the ban. D.C.’s murder rate rose dramatically relative to other cities, with its murder rate ranking either number 1 or 2 among the 50 most populous U.S. cities for half the time that the ban was in effect and in the top for two-thirds of the time,” he said.

“However, as soon as the ban and, more importantly, the gunlock regulations were struck down in 2008 the murder rate fell, dropping by 50 percent over the next four years. Indeed, every place in the world that has banned guns has seen an increase in murder rates.”

Massie also said he offered the amendment to give freshmen members of the house a chance to vote on a piece of gun legislation in their first terms in Congress.

“This was an opportunity to restore gun rights to a segment of the population, and I took it,” Massie told TheBlaze. “This is one of the foremost planks in my platform — the right to keep and bear arms — and I’ve been in Congress for almost two years now and haven’t even had a chance to vote on a piece of gun legislation. I wanted to provide an opportunity for all the freshmen in Congress who have been as frustrated as I have that, even though we have a Republican Congress, haven’t had any gun legislation on the floor.”

When the time came for a vote on the amendment, Democrats offered to allow it to pass by voice vote, which means individual votes would not be recorded.

“I declined their generous offer,” Massie said with a laugh. “I thought it was important to give everyone an opportunity to weigh in on this issue.”

The House approved the amendment 241 to 181, with 20 democratic yea votes, and subsequently passed the amended underlying appropriations bill HR 5016 – which includes the District of Columbia’s budget – with a 228-195 vote.

Massie said he was expecting to get a few democrats to support the amendment, but was pleasantly surprised to see a full 20 sign on.

“I expected a few who are in vulnerable districts facing tough reelections to support the amendment, but I was pleasantly surprised to see at least two democrats who aren’t up for reelection, and who aren’t coming back to Congress (Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike McIntyre from North Carolina) vote for the amendment,” he said.

D.C.’s gun laws are some of the strictest in the country; a litany of laws are on the books that make it difficult to obtain certain firearms, impossible to obtain others, and illegal to carry any loaded gun in the city. And according to a list compiled by ABC News, even those who already own a gun will have serious hoops to jump through just to bring their weapon to their own homes:

• Carrying a concealed weapon in D.C. is illegal.
• Carrying a weapon openly is illegal.
• You can be arrested and your firearm confiscated if you stop in DC for any reason with a firearm from out of state.
• Transporting any loaded gun in a vehicle in DC is illegal. Guns are required to be unloaded and unable to be accessed by the driver. The firearm or ammunition cannot be stored in the glove compartment or console.
• Gun free zones include day care centers, schools, universities, public swimming pools, video arcades, or youth centers. Carrying a gun into a gun-free zone carries a fine or can result in imprisonment.

Massie also compared D.C.’s gun laws to a favorite Democrat argument about voter card identification cards.

“Democrats often complain that requiring people to provide a photo ID to vote disproportionally disenfranchises minorities from their right to vote, yet many of them are comfortable disenfranchising minorities from the right to keep and bear arms because the District of Columbia has gun laws that require invasive fingerprinting, photographing and registering — which if what they say is true about voting is double true for D.C.’s gun laws,” he said.

According to the Washington Post, D.C.s Congressional Delagate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who does not have voting authority in Congress, was wholeheartedly displeased with Massie’s amendment.

“It’s a flagrant abuse of democracy by a member who comes here with a tea party principle that says power should be devolved to the local level,” said Norton, and said Massie was “playing with the lives” of city residents, federal officials and visitors to the city.

The overall bill and it’s amendments will now be subject to negotiation with Senate Democrats.

 

See Why Rolling Stone’s List of ‘Most Dangerous Guns’ Is Being Called ‘Maybe the Worst Piece of Journalism of All-Time’

The Internet is relentlessly mocking Rolling Stone’s new photo slideshow outlining the “5 most dangerous guns in America,” with one reader calling it “maybe the worst piece of journalism of all-time.” Making the publication’s list are pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and even Derringers.

As one commenter asks, “what’s left?” Here’s Rolling Stone’s list, starting with the “most dangerous.”

1. Pistols

2. Revolvers (Also handguns)

3. Rifles

4. Shotguns

5. Derringers

Many readers blasted the list in comments section below the story. There was more than enough snark on social media websites as well. Many of the commenters also created their own “lists” of dangerous things, while others wondered if the list was actually intended to be satire.

Check out some of the comments below:

The Complexity of the Response to Tragedy

We are again in the wake of another public tragedy. This latest horror, which claimed six innocent lives in southern California, has brought about the predictable calls for gun control and limitations upon the Second Amendment.

I, probably like you, find myself back in the same place, in the same unenviable position of defending the Second Amendment and trying to inject some thoughtful conversation into an emotionally charged situation.

President Barack Obama, after this tragedy, stated that he was “explicitly disappointed in the failure of Congress to take action on a measure that was entirely consistent with Second Amendment rights that he supports.”

Presumably, he is referring to the gun control proposals he set forth not long after the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012. From the White House web site, these are the points he wants instituted and how they would not have prevented the shooting:

• Require background checks for all gun sales – this would not have prevented the three gun murders at UC Santa Barbara for two reasons. First, the killer went through background checksto get his guns and all were registered to him. Second, according to the Government Accountability Office report referenced in the White House site, California already conducts checks on all firearm transactions.
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales – this would have done nothing as well. Increasing the mental health records available to the background check system is a large part of this point, but California already includes mental health provisions in their gun laws.
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons – their ridiculous and incorrect definition of “assault weapons” aside, the killer used a knife and a pistol, neither of which would be affected here.
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds – again, this would have had no effect on the tragedy whatsoever.
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets – no effect whatsoever.
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime – no effect at all as the killer obtained his guns legally and used a knife to kill half of the victims.
• End the freeze on gun violence research – this is a moot point as well because President Obama, through executive order, directed the Center for Disease Control to study the causes of gun violence and even directed $10 million to them. This was on Jan. 16, 2013. Much of that research has actually countered many of the left’s claims about gun violence as well.
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates – The UCSB campus is fairly large and unless you are going to hire a veritable army, you will not have officers everywhere. Most of the victims were killed in a dorm or sorority house, and the killer was already seeing a therapist.
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people – once again, the killer was already seeing a therapist.

 

Nothing within the president’s proposal would have prevented this tragedy. His inclusion of Congressional inaction reveal the true nature of his interest – restricting the Second Amendment.

The father of one of the victims, Christopher Martinez, expressed his outrage and frustration over the senseless loss of his only son. Speaking to cameras he said this:

“Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live?”

This statement, spoken out of a pain and grief I cannot comprehend, is nonetheless absurd. Why did his son die? Because the killer shot and killed him. Congress did not kill his son and the NRA did not kill his son. The decisions of one individual with clear mental problems did.

This is a very simple truth, but difficult for a man who needs an answer and needs to apportion blame to someone for his unimaginable loss.

While this father will simply call for more gun control and perhaps even a limitation to the NRA, a real solution is far more complicated. The truth is, trying to find rational explanations and come up with rational responses to an entirely irrational act is a very difficult thing.

Mental health is a place that many reasonable people will start, especially in regards to this tragedy, but that too is quite complex. Are we going to start banning anyone with a particular diagnosis or prescription from owning a gun? Perhaps we take that a step further because of Sandy Hook and say that any family member of someone with a certain diagnosis or prescription is banned from gun ownership.

Aside from the gross violations of the Second Amendment, what does this do to the doctor/patient relationship? Would that not constitute a complete violation of confidentiality? Would the doctor then be legally liable to report symptoms to the police? What would that do to the trust relationship between doctor and patient? What if the diagnosis was wrong?

Addressing details of such an act are just as difficult. What diagnoses are you going to profile? Which prescriptions do you target? What kind of legal push-back will you get from mental health advocacy groups and pharmaceutical companies without a definitive link between certain illnesses and savage violence?

People could easily view therapy or mental health treatment as a risk to their Constitutionally protected rights and eschew treatment because of the possible consequences rather than seek it for the possible rewards.

 

Would we seriously consider removing the rights of someone for doing nothing wrong? This effectively would be punishing someone for a future crime that they might commit.

These are difficult and complicated questions and yes, it is a hard issue to tackle. Too many times we find ourselves hearing the easy and expedient “solution,” though it is no such thing, of simply removing a tool of violence rather than helping the person who may use it.

To those who react with calls for serious gun control, I ask you this: What is the difference between the First and Second Amendment? Aside from the specific right it protects, the wording is nearly identical.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

The Second is the same, stating that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The First prohibits abridging, the Second prohibits infringement. The wording and prohibitions to the power of government are the same.

Why then is it perfectly acceptable to put numerous restrictions on the Second Amendment that would seem ridiculous if applied to free speech?

Imagine a law requiring background checks for an email account, or a 45 second maximum time limit on YouTube videos, or a license to obtain a Twitter account. These ideas are absurd and would never fly, yet they are the very restrictions placed on an equally protected right in the same Constitution.

If the Second Amendment, whether you exercise it or believe in it or not, is allowed to be infringed and changed without a constitutional amendment, do you really believe all the other amendments are so sacred and respected that they too could not be changed or restricted?