A Kitchener father is upset that police arrested him at his children’s’ school Wednesday, hauled him down to the station and strip-searched him, all because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

…“From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.

Waterloo Regional Police Insp. Kevin Thaler said there was a complaint from Forest Hills public school that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

Anytime that it can be said that a child is in “danger,” no matter how contrived or how hysterical, the state has immediate powers to move in and take control of lives. After Jesse Sansone was arrested, his wife was separated from their other three children, and the kids were taken to Family and Children’s Services where they were grilled by social services bureaucrats. Then his home was searched by police. Thanks to Mark Fee for the link.

Ahh, yes, I keep forgetting that there is supposed to be a difference between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans, especially on stuff like guns and welfare. Here is a quote from the writer, Raquel Okyay (please resist laughing and give the lady some pity for her ignorance):

Republican nominee hopeful, Mitt Romney, may very well be the next President of the United States. If so, gun rights advocates can relax a sigh of relief.

Miss Okyay goes on and on to supposedly cite Romney’s heroic, pro-gun record over the years. She even dares to cite a Romney campaign speech(!) as “proof” of his pro-gun stance.

Then there’s David Codrea, a guy who spends a lot of time exposing the lies of politicians who try to pull the “pro-gun” scam in public when the facts show otherwise. Codrea, in his latest column, “Romney SHOULD Make Conservatives Squirm,” reminds us of the real Mitt Romney who signed into law a weapons ban in 2004.

We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime, said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.

And then there’s the Mitt Romney of 2002 who bragged about tough gun laws in Massachusetts. Watch for yourself.

For the rest of the semester, a Rutherford County elementary student has to eat lunch at the “silent table” for allegedly waving around a slice of pizza some say resembled a gun.

Nicholas Taylor attends David Youree Elementary School in Smyrna, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville.

School leaders say the 10-year-old threatened other students at his lunch table with a piece of pizza with bites out of it so it looked like a gun and when asked about it was initially not truthful.

Nicholas’ mother LeAnn calls her son’s punishment “absolutely ridiculous” saying he was just playing around and never said anything derogatory or anything about shooting anyone.

“The kid across the table from him said it looked like a gun so he picked it up and started shooting it in the air,” she told Nashville’s News 2 Investigates.

Taylor said she learned of the incident when the school sent her a note saying her son was threatening other students.

Did this gun not have a safety? What about a trigger lock? Why wasn’t it unloaded and locked away in a cabinet where no child could reach it? Will the next social force for good be MABB (Mothers Against Barbaric Bites)?

I know Christmas is over, but it seems to me that a pizza gun – whether or not it shoots pepperoni – would be a good fit for the Island of Misfit Toys.

Except the Island of Misfit Toys already has a gun – a water pistol that shoots jelly.

A heroic U.S. District Court Judge has “ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment.” Furthermore,

Bennett required Weber take a class that must be a college-level course on the United States Constitution, “including — at least in part — a discussion of the First Amendment.” And Bennet said, Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Upon completion of the class, Weber must also file an affidavit with the clerk of court showing successful completion with a passing grade.

Mainly, I wanted to comment on this shooting incident that happened near my home just recently. It’s being called the Farmington Hills road rage incident. A brief description from the story:

Mintz was reportedly braking several times on northbound Orchard Lake near 13 Mile around 4:30 p.m. Monday when a 20-year-old Commerce Township man behind him apparently became irritated, exited his car and approached Mintz at his car window. Mintz then reportedly pulled out a 38 Revolver and shot the Commerce man once in the arm, according to police. The victim’s injuries were not life threatening.

It’s hard to really know how things occurred, but one thing is known for certain: when a person leaves his vehicle in the middle of a crowded road to angrily approach another individual, who is sitting peacefully in his car, the intent is to do harm, or, to make the other person think he means to do him harm. Wrong. And yes, sometimes that can be a dead wrong decision. Someone giving you the finger, screaming at you, etc., is not a reason to leave your car and go nuts. A middle finger or shouting is not the same as an intent to do harm.

First off, on a daily basis I face aggression on the road, time and time again. People who cannot contain their anger or miserable state certainly take it out on others on the road. I learned, long ago, while in my 20s, that it was not worth it to mix it up with these people. They are not worth your attention, and certainly, why put yourself at risk over some nutjob that you’ll never come in contact with again? When people aggressively tailgate me – and this happens a lot where I live – I don’t tap my brakes (like I used to when I was younger). I slow down until they go raging by me. Sometimes they’ll swerve over back in front of me and slam on the brakes, but again, I’ll slow or stop and let them realize that there’s going to be no conflict here. Eventually, they lose interest and move on.

That Mintz was tapping his brakes was not the smartest thing to do, but evidently, he was sending a message his way: stop the unprovoked aggression. The other driver, who appears to have been the aggressor from the start, decided to take the conflict to a different level. A person who will get out of his car, in the middle of rush hour, and approach a vehicle to rage on, is a dangerous (and unpredictable) person. People are carrying guns and other weapons nowadays, and such an action really shows the aggressor’s ignorance and carelessness.

As to Mintz, here’s my beef – he was completely untrained in the use of his concealed pistol (as are most concealed carry folks). When you carry a loaded weapon you have to think far bigger than the other guy. You have to train to prepare.  You have to train to react under pressure and in varied scenarios. Mintz should have been watching the guy from the moment he stepped out of that car behind him, and he would have been able to determine if the guy was armed, either with a gun or some other makeshift weapon. He should have watched his every step, his hand and arm movements, and his approach to his vehicle. If he did, he would have known a lot more about the road rager’s intent. He would have seen if the guy was drawing a weapon. When the rager approached his car, he should have been looking for a way out; if he had nowhere to go due to a red light and no way to go around others, then, as the guy continued to approach his window, he should have drawn and chambered the firearm. After all, a person who has got to the point where he is inches away from your car window can do major damage very quickly. Seeing a firearm would typically end the approach and the conflict. Yes, I know that brandishing a firearm can be tricky, and interpreted by law in various ways. But I’d rather end a road conflict peacefully than carry it out to the extreme.

If the sight of a firearm does not end the conflict, and if no weapon is presented by the rager, Mintz would have certainly bought enough time for the light to turn green and traffic to start moving. Thus, he could have escaped the conflict. After all, this was not a robbery attempt, where the intentions are clear from the start. This is a case of a person momentarily going nuts, and that should be handled knowing that it can likely be diffused without shots being fired. If the aggressor started punching his way through the window, that’s when it is time to take the ultimate defensive stance.

Mintz had no training, no awareness, and no ability to understand how he would react to various events. It’s a shame that most people never take a bit of training beyond the very lame CPL course they take to get their carry permit. Granted, they have a basic right to carry a weapon, period, but common sense and self-responsibility should lead people to understand more about the weapon they carry and become proficient enough to determine how and when they should use it. That will likely serve to alleviate a time and place where you are sitting your butt in front of an unpredictable jury. You don’t just go off and shoot people because you are pissed.

If I were on the jury in such a case, knowing only what I know now, what would I do? I would say, without a doubt, that Mintz was scared and acted in self-defense, in spite of not being well-trained and prepared. The ultimate mistake, in my mind, was committed by the individual who got out of his car and aggressively approached another person, showing intent to do harm. In today’s world, that’s a really, really bad thing to do.

Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.

“Arm themselves,” the judge said. ”Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.”

Two guns used in high-profile shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis. Law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that both guns were once seized in criminal cases in Memphis.

The guns were seized and sold to bring in cash. Meanwhile, the ATF has been busy getting toy guns – Airsoft guns – off the street. The ATF seized a shipment of these toys because it made the claim that they could be retrofitted into firearms, which is laughable and absurd. As one fella in this follow-up article states (a merchandise receiver at Andy & Bax Surplus, a Portland Airsoft dealer), “It would be as easy to transform an Airsoft as it would be to transform your Cuisinart or any other electrical appliance into a real gun.” Watch out if you have a Cuisinart! Especially if it doesn’t have an orange tip on the blade. Thanks to Mark Fee for the FYI.