Short version:

In Iowa, a guy pulls a gun on a store clerk. Clerk pulls out his gun. A “face-off” and then the thug flees.

Get the full story at Alphecca.

Burn armed robbers, says Guinea crime chief

Guinean citizens should burn any armed robbers they catch to avoid filling the country’s prisons, the military government’s anti-crime chief said Tuesday.

Lawlessness in the capital city Conakry has risen in recent months, with soldiers accused of being among the main culprits of robberies and rapes.

“I’m asking you to burn all armed bandits who are caught red-handed committing an armed robbery,” said Captain Moussa Tiegboro Camara, appointed by the military junta to oversee the fight against drugs and serious crime.

The hyped part of the story, of course, is the fact that a government official is telling citizens to not only take things into their own hands, he’s telling them to mete out punishment. Serious punishment.

But, lost in the wow! factor, is this bit that many will overlook:

with soldiers accused of being among the main culprits of robberies and rapes

So while some are going to laud this humorous and satisfying, if reckless, approach to crime control, what are normal citizens supposed to do against soldiers who are presumably well-armed? Even if a group of justice-minded citizens gangs up on a crime-committing solider, overpowers him, and burns him as directed, isn’t the rest of the guy’s squad going to show up and mete out some punishment of their own?

You cannot successfully defy the bad guys for long if they outgun you.

Are you in fear for your life and the life of your wife?

Murdoc’s answer is: Yes, almost certainly.

In Florida, a masked man invaded one home, left, and then tried to invade another. The second homeowner shot him twice.

“Our homeowner didn’t have an obligation to retreat. He is able to protect his property,” said Lt. James Clark, of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. “The questions we’re trying to answer: If he was in fear for his life and the life of his wife. If he was, he would be justified in this shooting.”

Florida’s passage of a Castle Doctrine law has been controversial in some circles. Including, I suspect, the criminal circles.

The shootee has an

extensive criminal history involving drugs, fleeing/eluding law enforcement. He was also investigated for a previous armed robbery.

Des Moines:

A gunman shot and killed a prominent Iowa high school football coach in the school’s weight room early Wednesday and was taken into custody shortly afterward, authorities said.

The gunman shot Aplington-Parkersburg High School coach Ed Thomas at about 8 a.m. with about 50 students in the school, including several in the weight room at the time. School was not in session, and no one else was injured.

The shooter was apparently not a student.

Here’s the headline: Cell Phone Protects Clerk From Knife Attack in Robbery

Here’s the story:

Joseph Wescott says the phone he slipped into his shirt pocket stopped a knife to his chest when a robbery suspect attacked him at the store in a northern Atlanta suburb. He then reached under the counter for the .40-caliber handgun and shot the man.

Good on the phone. Good on the gun. But while phone-only would have protected against the first attack, was the guy going to stop every attack with his phone? If I’ve got to chose between phone-only and gun-only against an attacker, I’ll take the firepower. That said, carrying both is even better.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone claim that this shows how a phone can protect you from knife attacks. Just make sure they stab you in the battery.

Also, I’m wondering why the robber wasn’t using a gun. We keep hearing about how guns are so easy to get (and I’m not really disagreeing), but if things are so bad, how come the bad guy used a knife and the good guy used a gun? Even if the gun control crowd could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear forever, it would have left this guy on even terms with the bad guy.

Finally, there’s this:

“That was the first time I had ever fired that gun,” [Wescott] said.

Boys and girls, if you’re going to own a gun, at least take it to the range a couple of times. If you’re going to carry it to protect yourself, take it to the range regularly. I’m glad this turned out to be a story with a happy ending, but what if he would have pulled the gun only to go click?

Maybe a round wasn’t chambered. Maybe he didn’t know how to work the safety, or forgot in the heat of the moment. Maybe it’s just broken.

Take it out. Shoot it. Get used to it. Keep used to it.

Oakland, Tennessee:

The homeowner heard what sounded like a knock on his window around 12:30am. When the noise grew, the homeowner found a neighbor, 32-year old Anthony Webb, breaking through his window with a rake.

The homeowner tells FOX13 that he told the man repeatedly to stop, but Webb’s reply was “What are you going to do?”

Don’t ask tough questions. You may not like the answer.

The intruder was shot three times, and was declared dead upon arrival by local police.

Brian J. Phillips has it all figured out:

One consequence of right-wing paranoia is skyrocketing prices on guns and ammunition, as some shooters stockpile supplies in case of some sort of ban. Anecdotally, I was in a gun shop the other day and noticed the price on an SKS military rifle had almost tripled in about a year. Some gun shops are running out of ammunition. (Ammunition prices and supply are explained in part by the 4-fold increase in copper prices since 2004. But this does not explain the change in prices for firerams and non-copper ammo.)

Another consequence of right-wing paranoia is murder.

He says that right-wing fear of increased gun control is driving these guys over the edge and making them commit murder.

Von Brunn explicitly linked his domestic terrorism to a fear that someone was coming to get his guns.

I’d point out that Von Brunn explicitly linked his “domestic terrorism” to a lot of things. But this guy lays the blame for this and other crimes on literature distributed by the NRA.

I left this on his site:

Obama’s Change.gov and WhiteHouse.gov web sites stated that part of the Obama plan to address crime was to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and to make it permanent. That wasn’t “some strong statements about gun control in the 1990s,” that was part of his official policy statements during and after his election to the White House.

He’s said that he doesn’t have the votes to pass more gun control, not that he doesn’t want to enact more gun control. That’s a big difference, so don’t pretend that because he can’t means he wouldn’t if he could. AG Eric Holder, obviously, is all for drastically increased gun control.

As for “pro-gun-control advocates haven’t murdered anyone in the name of their cause,” I would point out that a lot of people have been murdered (many by killers with guns) because they couldn’t legally defend themselves with guns. That’s part of the equation, you know.

He holds the NRA partially responsible for murder because of their literature.

Let’s say someone reads his blog post, takes it to heart, and decides against buying a firearm because of it. And then gets murdered because he couldn’t defend himself. Will Brian J. Phillips be partly to blame for the crime because the victim was “inspired” to not arm himself?

I wouldn’t think so. Maybe Brian J. Phillips would disagree.