Archive | things that should go bang but don’t RSS feed for this section

>Eagle Creek Park Pistol (& Archery) Range Update

3 May

>From Indy Parks, via the Mayor’s Action Center:
“Thank you for your interest in the Eagle Creek Shooting Range. We are in transition currently and are eager to have it open to the public again as soon as possible. That will most likely be in the next couple of weeks. Please check the Pistol Range voicemail at 327-7296 for updated information about a specific timeline once one is confirmed.”

At this writing, the message is still, “Closed until further notice due to unforeseen* circumstances but we’re going to re-open soon.”

* “Unforeseen” as in, “Oops, somehow we forgot to budget for the staff.” Yeah, who saw that coming?

Time will tell if the promised re-opening is genuine or merely honeyed words while Mayor Ballard’s administration tries to squirm out of re-opening the range to the public. –Even though public access was part of the deal that got outside funding for the range, which functions as an IMPD range the rest of the time.

Updates:
The topic is under discussion at INGO’s forum; the rumor mill runs hot and cold, with some guys saying Indy Parks is unofficially not going to open it, others hearing the Park Director talking informally about wanting to open the range back up ASAP.

I think it’s time the City started hearing from polite, interested, concerned gun-owners. Here’s the home page for the Mayor’s Action Center; ask them why Eagle Creek Park Pistol Range isn’t open to the public. Here’s a contact page where you can ask Mayor Ballard why Eagle Creek Park Pistol Range is closed. Please use the links. Please share these links!

Advertisements

>Shunned/Interesting Argument

1 May

>Many readers will remember the outrage when HS Pr3cision (“Women and children first”) happily touted an endorsement by infamous FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. I’m very pleased to say the early reports are that at the extremely crowded NRA convention, at the HS P— booth, what they’re getting are…crickets.

Scanning the comments, I noticed some slightly askew takes on the history and today, Tam read ’em and got to someone complaining the Wikipedia article said ol’ ladykiller Lon couldn’t see Vickie Weaver, what with her being behind the door and all.

In fact, odds are pretty good he couldn’t; he wasn’t shooting at her anyway, but at Kevin Harris, which was still a shot determined after the fact to be unlawful.

And here’s where we argued; Tam says — and not without justification — that shooting Mrs. Weaver should have been charged as “negligent homicide;” I say it was premeditated homicide, “murder 1.”

Lookit, if that was a drive-by shooting gone wrong, in which John Doe doth take up arms and attempt to plug Richard Roe in the back, but misses and kills his babysitter, who is behind the door to which Roe was running, the law still looks upon it as a planned act; he doesn’t get a lesser charge for being a lousy killer. Why should an FBI agent — who is presumably far more cognizant of law and morality than a gang member or he wouldn’t be in the FBI — get any more of a break?

Back in the real world, what Lon actually got was time off; and in a slightly better world, Tam’s proposed charges (or less, if you click on through) would’ve had a better chance of victory in court than mine.

But if ever you climb a tree, rifle in hand, with clear intent and plan to kill a man, and you’re not at war, if you miss your guy and hit his friend? Don’t expect to get a discount for being a klutz.

Which brings me to my last point: how come HS P—- was so happy to receive an endorsement from the Wrong Way Corrigan of snipers?

>An Ancient Outrage, An Ancient Right

30 Jan

>…And one they don’t have any more. Turk Turon takes us back to the Tottenham Outrage, when Crown subjects lent their personal sidearms to police and helped them run a pair of desperate robbers to ground; a time when Britons commonly carried personal weapons and the murder rate was a fraction of the present day.

Which is the greater outrage, I wonder: a single running gunbattle, or disarming an entire nation of people?

>There, I Fixed It For You!

5 Dec

>Seen linked at Sebastian’s, a bedwetting editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer Infringer:

“If the General Assembly returns next year with a similar proposal to expand the so-called ‘castle doctrine,’ the new governor will be faced with endorsing what Rendell calls a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ mentality that fails to ‘protect the sanctity of human criminal life.'”

Lookie here, Eddie, you ignorant and/or evil beast, telling J. Random Law-Abiding Citizen he can’t defend himself or his family and friends when a malefactor threatens them with bodily harm to fails to “protect human life;” conversely, a law that, among other things, shields the legally armed individual from frivolous lawsuits when he has been found to have used a gun in self-defense does “protect the sanctity of human life.”

(And when was human life actually sacred and why would protecting that sacredness be better than protecting the actual life itself, anyhow? Something wrong in that man’s thinking process).

Why is it guys like the departing PA Governor fret over risks to the life of a hoodlum who points a revolver at you in the alley and demands, “Give it up,” while demanding his prospective victims surrender meekly to whatever he might do? His life is sacred, but the life of a law-abiding citizen isn’t even worth defending?

Gov. Rendell, baby, this is why you’re losing: criminals don’t vote. And even their kith and kin are getting tired of being required to knuckle under.

>Cruel, Unusual, Gag Order

23 Sep

>So, didja hear about the Indianapolis mother who penned up her five children in a two-foot by six-foot closet, shoved a bed or two against the door, and didn’t bother to check back for nearly half a day? Two of them died, mom is in jail and the remainder are in foster care. And now the killer mom’s attorney wants a gag order, ‘cos too much “sensational press coverage” will prevent his client getting a fair trial.

Me, I don’t think you can make a bare recitation of the facts in this crime any more lurid. The press doesn’t make it horrific: it is horrific. Cases like this make me understand the reason for banning cruel and unusual punishment, ‘cos were I in charge, I’d be stuffing her into a junk fridge, backing a car up to the door, and forgetting where it was for a week.

>Getting Used To It Doesn’t Make It Right

30 Aug

>Americans used to watch in varying degrees of horror as hapless Europeans were importuned by uniformed d00ds, usually German, “Papers, pliss?”

Oh, sure, if you drove, you had to have a driver’s license — a least by the time films featuring papers-demanding jack-booted thugs were hitting the silver screen — but that bit of pasteboard only certified that your State trusted you behind the wheel. Social Security cards were around, too — with “NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION” printed right on ’em. ‘Cos Americans don’t go on for that sort of thing.

It ebbed away. Driver’s licenses sprouted photographs and merchants started asking to see them when you wrote a check — just to make sure, you know, and who could blame them. Banks asked when you opened an account (it is wistfully amusing to recall that W. C. Fields left savings accounts in phony names scattered across the United States and probably Europe; it is eye-opening to realize it is no longer possible) and eventually — for your own protection! — they wanted to know your Social Security number, too. They didn’t want to see your card, mind you, it still wasn’t for identification.

…Of course, you have to put it on you tax forms; after all, Uncle Sam had to keep track! And everyone got used to it. It was normal. Besides, it’s not like those demanding to see your “papers” were wearing jackboots, after all.

It’s 2010. Your driver’s license number, if it isn’t the same as your Social Security number, links right back to it in records any police officer can see. Even if you don’t drive, if you can’t drive, you need either the DL or an ID card that carries the same information. All manner of minor functionaries blandly demand your “Social” and you can’t board a commercial airplane without showing ID, having your shoes, effects and possibly yourself X-rayed and even then, it’s conditional; if your name happens to be on a secret list, you’re not allowed to fly — and there’s no appealing the decision.

And it’s “normal.” You’re used to it and it’s not like they’re wearing jackboots, ho-ho. Besides, it’s not all that much trouble, is it?

After all, it’s for your own good.

Americans were a free people. We used to watch, in varying degrees of horror, movie scenes where a hapless European was importuned by police or security guards on the street or in a train station. “Papers, please,” they’d demand, and compare the poor boob’s name against a list. It could never, we’d think, never happen here.

Oops.

(P.S.: It doesn’t say “Not to be used for identification” on your Social Security card any more. It hasn’t for a long, long time).

>Quote Of The Day

26 Aug

>Indianapolis Public Safety Director Dr. Frank Straub, on all the negative publicity his department’s officers have been getting over teensy-weensy oopsies like drunken vehicular homicide, firing a gun in a police car during an argument with a girlfriend, covering up a DUI hit-and-run in a police car and other endearing little quirks:

You have to ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ Is there another game I’m not aware of? What’s the motivation?

Yeah, gee, Frank, doesn’t everyone expect a big-city police department to be a bunch of hard-drinking, hard-hitting losers?

No, pal, no we don’t. I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I’ve been pretty darned disappointed in IMPD. I know there are good folks on the force, but it’s looking more and more like it might be time for a housecleaning. You may be a new broom, Doc, but you’re not sweepin’ ’em any cleaner.