OPINION & EDITORIAL
Vote gives no shot for guns
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Carolyn Smith:
- Doyle attempts to undo GOP gaffes (January 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Playing politics quietly (November 13, 2003)
- Legislators: Override Doyle on conceal and carry (January 22, 2004)
- It's still alive... (October 15, 2007)
- Veto override a shortsighted victory (September 29, 2005)
- They voted for what? (November 6, 2003)
by Carolyn Smith
Thursday, November 16, 2006
I think it is safe to say that after the Nov. 7 elections, any hope for the passage of concealed-carry legislation in the state is effectively, and thankfully, dead. With the shift of power in the Wisconsin Senate, a more equal number of Republicans and Democrats in the state Assembly and Gov. Jim Doyle still sitting securely behind the governor's desk, residents can rest assured that their legislators will work to find sensible solutions to fixing some of the state's most pressing issues.
Last year, when Gov. Doyle vetoed the "Personal Protection Act" — a bill that would have legalized carrying concealed weapons in most public places — and the Assembly failed to garner enough votes for a veto override, several Republicans in the state vowed to keep their efforts alive.
The authors of the Protection Act, then-state Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, and current Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, drafted the legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns, knifes and billy clubs in public. And while it was not the first such bill passed by the Legislature, it was also not the first to receive the swift signature of Gov. Doyle's veto pen.
As is the norm in any form of government, if at first your bill doesn't succeed, try, try again. And in cases like the proposed gay marriage ban, lawmakers often draft constitutional amendments after a governor repeatedly stonewalls their attempts.
The next logical step in their quest for concealed carry would have been for Republicans to take the vetoed legislation and tweak it into a constitutional amendment. Had the composition of the Legislature not changed, they would likely be drawing up blueprints for such an undertaking.
And luckily, Zien, who has been pushing concealed-carry measures since the Thompson years, was defeated in the Nov. 7 elections. His constituency was so disillusioned with his tenure in office, they opted to oust him with the hopes that his opponent could do better.
The authors and proponents of concealed-carry laws claim they are necessary to increase public safety and they often cite this reasoning: Giving "law-abiding citizens" practical carte blanche to carry concealed weapons will make everyone safer because if said citizen encounters a criminal with a weapon, the citizen will be able to protect himself and the other "good guys" around him. While it is all well and good that this law-abiding citizen has taken the necessary measures to legally carry a concealed weapon, it doesn't guarantee he will be able to use the weapon appropriately if caught in a stressful situation.
For example, Madison has seen a record-breaking spate of bank robberies this year, and though it may be troubling to bankers and patrons alike, the robberies all have one thing in common: No one was hurt during them. Had some cowboy with a handgun seen one of the robberies taking place from outside and decided to take matters into his own hands, things may have ended differently. Perhaps he would have stopped the robbery and apprehended the suspect, or perhaps an innocent bystander would have gotten injured or killed.
There are reasons why those who can currently carry weapons — police — have to go through such extensive training. The rationale that allowing everyday people to carry weapons in public will make people safer, regardless of what criminals may be packing illegally, is ludicrous. Two wrongs do not make a right; and two weapons, no matter whose hands they are in, are by no means safer than one.
Carolyn Smith (csmith@badgerhald.com) is a continuing student at UW.
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 8:10am):
Leftist bullshit
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 9:49am):
they'll have to take that veto out of our cold, dead hands
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 10:52am):
"For example, Madison has seen a record-breaking spate of bank robberies this year, and though it may be troubling to bankers and patrons alike, the robberies all have one thing in common: No one was hurt during them."
Lefties - making the world safe for un-documented un-depositors!
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 10:56am):
An armed society is a polite society.
Guns are great equalizers for average-sized zed people confronted by super-sized evil people.
Guns are the last resort against governmental tyrants. Sorry ... I just don't trust our or any other government to always behave nicely.
Go after CRIMINALS not guns.
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 2:36pm):
Anonymous # 1 and 2: If you aren't going to argue intelligently, don't bother.
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 8:06pm):
Concealed carry legislation is not dead. Wisconsin is one of only two states that do not have such laws on the book. When everyone's property taxes and vehicle registration fees go up, Democrats will get thrown back out and concealed carry legislation will come back.
Also, Dave Zien's loss had nothing to do with his stance on concealed carry. It was a bad cycle for Republicans. If they had pushed that issue harder, it probably would have motivated more of his constituents to vote for him instead of stay home.
Anonymous (November 16, 2006 @ 11:16pm):
Dear Ms. Smith,
Its amazing how ignorant you are about the reality of society these days. Your article is ridiculous and tells me that your 34 years on this earth have been extremely sheltered and probably in a fantasy land. Maybe that's why you're listed as a continuing student. You have a lot to learn!
What you fail to understand is that the common citizen is confronted with a barrage of daily encounters that are very risky. Robbers, thieves, drug dealers, homeless individuals, scamsters, school shooters, crazy postal employees and terrorists are all around us. Think about it...........nothing will stop them. Not gun laws, not the police - no one. Nothing will change them. Nothing will stop them except the police if its the exact second of their attack or a trained permitted individual with a firearm.
You hope you're never on the side of worrying about what to do next, before you experience first hand the trauma at the hands of some thug. Relying on the police for your protection is a gamble not worth risking. Remember, the police usually arrive AFTER the crime has occurred.
So,..............why is it then fair that we as honest, upstanding, tax paying citizens accept this risk? Pure and simple - its not acceptable. We should be, at all times, on a level playing field with the criminals, not in a position of disadvantage and complacency and listening to your uninformed rhetoric.
A concealed weapon permit begins to balance the equation. Just look at how many states now authorize concealed weapons permits. Take a look at their crime statistics, too. Criminals may be dumb, but they're not stupid. They want to live and carry out their illegal endeavors. But that's not so much the case in places like Florida, Utah, Arizona and all of the other permit states. All but three.........Wisconsin, Hawaii and Illinois
Some day you'll wake up, after you've been victimized and mad that you couldn't do anything about it, except take it. You'll be essentially powerless at the time of the crime and possibly injured, disabled or even killed. Then your tune will be something completely different, something like all of the mothers that formed MADD after a loved one was killed for no reason.
Wake up and grow up before a criminal does it for you.
Anonymous (November 17, 2006 @ 2:17pm):
I agree with your Carolyn Smith that that Wisconsin does not need a concealed-carry law.
You see, for many years we here in Minnesota have legally carried concealed handguns, and criminals know it is a bad idea to attack one of us. Nothing says no to a rapist or mugger quite like a bullet hole in the chest.
That's why we are certainly doing our best to spread the news to Minnesota criminals that Ms. Smith and her friends prefer your residents to be defenseless lambs
This encourages our rapists, muggers, mass killers, car-jackers, white-sheeted bigots, terrorists, gay bashers and anti-Semites to leave here and move to Wisconsin. The mass exodus of our criminals helps ensure the continued well-being of our residents -- even those who choose not to carry a handgun.
Your readers who will be victimized by these transplanted predators can find solace in knowing that we deeply appreciate Ms. Smith's willingness to keep them available as easier targets of opportunity. If it saves just one Minnesota life, it is worth it.
Jack Burton
Anonymous (November 17, 2006 @ 11:27pm):
I'm a retired USAF Msgt, qualified to shoot and hit with more flavors of firearms than I care to list here. I live in Pennsylvania, a shall issue state. I've carried a pistol on my side every day since early 1969 in either an official capacity or as an armed citizen. In those years, I have had the need to actually point a gun at a miscreant, malcontent, or just plain stupid person only 3 times. No shots were ever fired. The mere presence of the firearm defused what would likely have been a violent encounter. I've also cracked a few skulls with a baton, because shooting drunks at the crowded NCO club on payday night was frowned upon by my superiors.
Your characterization of me and many like me as "cowboys" or loose cannons could not be further from the truth. As a certified instructor in a state that requires no training whatever, you would likely be amazed at the number of folks who attend classes sponsored by the NRA and other pro gun safety groups. The decision to carry a firearm carries with it an awesome responsibility to avoid violent encounters at all costs, and lethal force is a final and irreversible option that no rational man or woman takes lightly.
Your delight that Wisconsin remains a holdout state in the matter of right to carry should be tempered by reading Paxton Quigley, Massad Ayoob, and others. Here in Pennsylvania, crime took a nosedive after the 1988 reformation of the right to carry laws, and to this day, many folks who do NOT carry enjoy a degree of safety in that the bad guys never know if a prospective victim may be armed. As a final thought, I wonder if you've ever been to the range and fired any type of pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun? Your wholesale write-off of the populace being ill prepared in a stress fire situation is specious at best. What would you do if a 250 pound recidivist ex-convict decided to beat you to a pulp, simply because he doesn't like the color of your car/hair/eyes, or you remind him of his mother? Your bare fear shows through transparently in your comments. Please don't classify the rest of the world according to your unpreparedness in the event of a violent encounter. And oh, by the way, the bank robberies in Madison....criminals rob banks because that's where the money is. Criminals rob with impunity when they know that the only other person likely to be armed in a bank is another crook. Its really quite simple.
Anonymous (November 18, 2006 @ 3:45am):
Why should I lock my house or car? After all, no one has tried to break into either one. YET!
You offer a great deal of what you probably consider evidence, but it is only opinion that is not suppported by fact. Fact: Average annual statistic: Approximately 2 million instances of defensive gun use in the USA. The media only reports the gun crimes. You rarely hear about the elderly couple who fended off a car-jacking or the young mother who stopped an attempt to kidnap a child because they were armed. These stories, if reported at all, usually receive small mention in major media.
You are ASSUMING that police are "extensively trained". The police do not carry guns to enfore the law, they do so to defend themselves and others because the occasion might arise. I was a police officer. In nearly 40 years' of teaching about guns, I have met a GREAT number of cops who cannot shoot accurately, effectively or safely.
The Personal Protection Act would require citizens to receive at least as much, if not more training than many of the armed police officers in your state.
A "cowboy" attempting to foil a bank robbery is no argument. You are creating a fictitious person and then assigning irresponsible attitudes. You have just grossly insulted a great number of your fellow Wisconsonites.
Ms. Smith, in nearly 40 years' training military, police and civilians in defensive handgun use, I have yet to encounter any "cowboys". I suspect that TV and Hollywood have helped shape your opinions. You cannot present "make-believe" as if fact.
Your so-called arguments are speculative and poorly-supported by any facts. I invite you to attend one of my classes for free. If nothing else, it will be a continuation of your education.
Craig R. Brownell
Chief Instructor
http://www.mnpistolclass.com
Anonymous (November 18, 2006 @ 8:45am):
Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime.
Fact: Thirty five states1 (and the majority of the American population) live in "right-to-carry" states, and in each the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the law became active (as of July, 2006). Three more states generally issue permits, though it is optional ("do-issue").
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started
in 1989.2
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average and remains below the national average to this day.3
Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after a concealed carry law was passed in 1995. Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
- Murder rates drop 8%
- Rape rates fall 5%
- Aggravated assaults drop 7%
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws4:
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.5
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
1 At publication time two more states, Kansas and Nebraska, have pass shall-issue legislation, but the new laws have not yet taken effect.
2 Florida Department of Justice, 1998
3 Cramer C and Kopel D. Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
4 John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S., from 1977 through 1992. During this time ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the US would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults -- and saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.
5 FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 2004 - excludes Hawaii and Rhode Island - small populations and geographic isolation create other determinants to violent crime.
Anonymous (November 18, 2006 @ 8:54am):
Friday, November 17, 2006
Tennessee State Senator Foils Burglary w/ his Concealed weapon permit.
Tennessee State Senator Tim Burchett says he foiled a burglary of his warehouse on Wednesday and held the suspected teenagers at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
The senator was re-elected last week without opposition and has served in the state General Assembly for eight years. He holds a concealed weapon permit and owns two pistols: a 9 mm Glock and a .25-caliber Keltec.
The Knoxville Republican said the warehouse where he keeps old motorcycles and parts had previously been burglarized and he was trying to catch the perpetrators by staking out the woods nearby, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported on its Web site.
The teenagers had broken off the lock and were about to go inside when he confronted them with his pistol.
"I got four of them. One got away," Burchett said, although deputies told him the fifth was arrested later. "I think that's pretty good. I'm sick of crime. I'm sick of being a victim. I've been staying up at night trying to catch these guys."
Knox County Sheriff's department spokeswoman Martha Dooley confirmed that the teenagers were arrested, but said a report had not been filed and she could not give details.
Burchett told the newspaper that three motorcycles and a security camera had previously been stolen, apparently after school hours.
When he spotted the teens Wednesday, he said he called 911 to tell them he was armed and planned to confront the suspects.
"The lady said, 'Are you going to shoot them?' and I said, 'No, I'm not going to shoot some kid over a dad-gum motorcycle,'" he said.
Burchett said he told the youths to "put your hands up" and then to "put your hands behind your head."
"One of them said, 'Well, which one do you want: Hands up or behind the head?' and I said, 'Either one,'" he said.
Anonymous (November 18, 2006 @ 7:22pm):
On 17 Nov 2006 at 14:19, Rick Schwartz wrote:
> Help Carolyn find the truth, and show her fellow students the errors of her
> ways.
>
> http://badgerherald.com/oped/2006/11/16/vote_gives_no_shot_f.php#feedback
>
> Rick
Carolyn,
Your opinion is filled with prejudice, false and misleading information,
untruths, misinformation that is not borne out by facts and tired old cliches
that oppose our human right to keep and bear arms.
One thing your article does illustrate quite well though, is that while we
cannot completely trust the Republicans to support and defend our human right
to keep and bear arms, we most certainly can trust the Democrat liberal
socialists to oppose it at every opportunity. This is why I will never again
vote for a Democrat and will only vote for a Republican if it's a close race
and a Democrat might win.
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
Moderator of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Guns_Concealed_Carry_RKBA/
Anonymous (November 18, 2006 @ 7:24pm):
Yet another kool aid drinking liberal pacifist opinion. Typical of the oppression of the Democrats.
Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 12:36am):
"There are reasons why those who can currently carry weapons -- police -- have to go through such extensive training."
Sorry to break the news to you, but police are only required to "Qualify" with their pistols no more than twice a year. Few officers fire their weapons for practice until their re-qualification is coming up. Most "cowboys with a handgun" fire more practice round at the range in 6 months than most officers fire throughout their careers.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 2:17pm):
More than 2/3's of the states allow "everyday people" to carry concealed weapons and the doom and gloom predictions of the anti-self-defense crowd have failed to materialize. In fact studies show that, as a group, "everyday people" licensed to carry concealed weapons are more law abiding and less likely to shoot the wrong person than the police. Your fear of licensed concealed carry just does not hold up when compared to reality.
Anonymous (November 23, 2006 @ 9:52pm):
United States justice statistics show Americans need firearms
John Snyder
8/7/2006
News Release Wire
United States justice statistics show Americans need firearms for defense of life and property, says gun law expert
"An analysis of crime figures released Sunday by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that law-abiding Americans should continue to enjoy legal access to the possession and use of firearms," gun law expert John M. Snyder said here this morning.
"If anything, this access should be strengthened for the good of citizens and the safety of society," he added.
According to the justice report, 56 percent of the violent felons convicted in the nation's 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction record, 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.
Thirty-six percent of the violent felons had a least one active criminal status at the time of their arrest, including 18 percent on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and seven percent on parole.
"What these numbers show, for the umpteenth time," observed Snyder, "is that there is a violent criminal class in our country. Law-abiding people have to be able to protect themselves and their families and their property from these thugs. In order to be able to do this, they need access to the tools with which to do it. There is no better self-defense instrument than a gun, in particular a handgun.
"People who seek to deny citizens this access, no matter how well-intended they may be, and whether they come from political, academic, professional, business, media or ecclesiastical backgrounds, in reality work against the true interests of law-abiding citizens and in favor of the nefarious interests of the criminal class. To be blunt, they are allies of the violent criminal class. At some point, they're bound to get what's coming to them."
Snyder pointed out that, "at present, there are a number of proposals in Congress and in state legislatures to loosen current legal restrictions on the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. One of the most significant of these is a congressional proposal to free law-abiding residents of our Nation's Capital from the draconian gun control system to which they have been subjected for 30 years. It's time to overturn the D.C. gun law and allow law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. to own and carry handguns to protect themselves and their loved ones from the reign of violent crime that hand-wringing local officials seem incapable of effectively confronting.
"There are a number of other proposals on deck at various stages for congressional consideration, including more than one to prohibit the use of federal funds for confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens during times of public disaster. Congress should act favorably on them."
"Guns save lives," Snyder said, "and a number of scholarly studies, such as one conducted by Gary Kleck of Florida State University, and another conducted by John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, clearly demonstrate this. Easing legal access to firearms for law-abiding private citizens correlates with precipitous decreases in rates of violent crime. It's time public policy reflected this truth."
A former Associate Editor of The American Rifleman, official monthly journal of the National Rifle Association, Snyder is Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Public Information Officer of the American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens, Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and Chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society
Anonymous (November 26, 2006 @ 8:02am):
Firearms & 2nd Amendment
Concealed Weapons in the Wilderness or elsewhere.
Lots of kids, when very young, worry about monsters under the bed. Even when Mom or Dad comes in to reassure them, the kids may still worry. But as they get older, they begin to check under the bed themselves. And eventually, after many monster-free nights, they figure out that the danger is purely imaginary, and they stop worrying.
You would think by now gun control supporters would have made the same progress on one of their most fearsome demons: the licensing of citizens to carry concealed firearms. But they seem to be trapped in a recurring nightmare that exists only in their minds.
So imagine their alarm at a bill recently introduced in Congress that would allow people with concealed-carry permits take weapons into their home state's national parks. The indefatigably anti-gun New York Times warned that the measure is a step toward "nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for" and "can only endanger the public."
Such fears may have been plausible once upon a time -- when Americans were generally not allowed to carry firearms. But since 1987, when Florida decided to let law-abiding citizens get concealed-carry permits, that has changed. Today, some 40 states have such "shall-issue" laws. They've become the norm, and the fears they inspired have proved unfounded.
As it happens, serious crime has waned in the intervening years. Murders are now at their lowest level since the 1960s. Violent crime has been cut by nearly 60 percent since the peak year of 1994. Gun crimes have plunged as well.
It may not be true, as some experts believe, that America has gotten safer because more people are legally packing heat. But it's impossible to claim that the change has made us less safe.
At the outset of this experiment, gun opponents forecast that hot-tempered pistoleros would spray bullets at the slightest provocation, requiring the rest of us to wade through rivers of blood just to cross the street. In fact, one of the most conspicous facts about handgun licensees is their mild temper. It's rare for them to commit crimes, and even rarer for them to use their firearms to commit crimes.
A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that in a state with more than 200,000 people licensed to carry guns, only 180 were convicted of crimes in 2001, and most of those crimes didn't involve firearms. Only one licensee was convicted of murder. Florida, which has nearly 400,000 permit holders, revoked only 330 licenses last year -- about one out of every 1,200.
This record should not be surprising. As a rule, concealed-carry licenses are off-limits to anyone with a history of crime, substance abuse, drunk driving or serious mental illness, and most states require safety training. In any case, people who are inclined to commit mayhem generally don't seek state licenses to carry guns, any more than they ask permission to break into houses or beat up girlfriends. It's the law-abiding folks who apply for licenses.
Why would these peaceable souls want to take their guns when hiking or camping in a national park? Same reason they might take them other places: a desire to protect themselves. Though federal lands are mostly safe, they sometimes play host to crime. In fact, park rangers are far more likely to be assaulted or killed than FBI agents.
The Times says, "If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office." Maybe that would help, but we can't put a park ranger at every bend in the trial. And if you run into a thug deep in the backcountry, you can't expect the police or anyone else to come to the rescue.
For some people -- solitary women in particular -- having the means of self-defense in the woods can be not only a comfort but a lifesaver. It's fine to trust in one's fellow man. That doesn't mean it's paranoid to have a Plan B.
Judging from a wealth of experience, adopting this new policy would be a non-event, with no unwanted repercussions. The only danger it poses is to criminals, who would lose some easy prey, and anti-gun zealots, who would once again be proven wrong.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 3:47pm):
Today, some 40 states have ... "shall-issue" laws. They've become the norm, and the fears they inspired have proved unfounded.
As it happens, serious crime has waned in the intervening years. Murders are now at their lowest level since the 1960s. Violent crime has been cut by nearly 60 percent since the peak year of 1994. Gun crimes have plunged as well.
It may not be true, as some experts believe, that America has gotten safer because more people are legally packing heat. But it's impossible to claim that the change has made us less safe.
At the outset of this experiment, gun opponents forecast that hot-tempered pistoleros would spray bullets at the slightest provocation, requiring the rest of us to wade through rivers of blood just to cross the street. In fact, one of the most conspicuous facts about handgun licensees is their mild temper. It's rare for them to commit crimes, and even rarer for them to use their firearms to commit crimes.
A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that in a state with more than 200,000 people licensed to carry guns, only 180 were convicted of crimes in 2001, and most of those crimes didn't involve firearms. Only one licensee was convicted of murder. Florida, which has nearly 400,000 permit holders, revoked only 330 licenses last year - about one out of every 1,200.
This record should not be surprising. As a rule, concealed-carry licenses are off-limits to anyone with a history of crime, substance abuse, drunk driving or serious mental illness, and most states require safety training. In any case, people who are inclined to commit mayhem generally don't seek state licenses to carry guns, any more than they ask permission to break into houses or beat up girlfriends. It's the law-abiding folks who apply for licenses.
Anonymous (November 30, 2006 @ 10:53pm):
Victim wants to meet man who killed her attacker
The scene of the August, 2005, fatal shooting
Last Update: 11/30/2006 1:51:12 PM
By: Reed Upton
Video
An Albuquerque woman whose ex-husband was stabbing her when he was shot and killed by a stranger says that she would like to meet the man who she feels saved her life.
"I just gotta give thanks that I'm alive and I would like to met Mr. Moore very soon because he is my angel and he did the right thing to save my life," said Joyce Cordova.
Cordova was working in the deli at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart in August of 2005 when she was confronted by her ex-husband, 54-year-old Felix Vigil. Vigil was armed with a knife, went behind the counter and began stabbing her.
Due Moore, 72, who didn't know either people, happened to be shopping in the store at the time when he came across the attack.
Moore, who was among the first people in the state to receive a license to carry a concealed weapon, produced a nine-millimeter handgun and shot Vigil three times, killing him.
Moore, who didn't want to be interviewed on camera, declined to meet with the woman who credits him with saving her life until any legal issues surrounding the incident are resolved.
Eyewitness News 4 spoke with the district attorney's office on Wednesday and learned that the incident has just recently been ruled a justifiable shooting.
Anonymous (December 10, 2006 @ 5:21pm):
"Guns are like lawyers: Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it."
