Two recent home invasions in Ohio had two very different outcomes for the victims, and for the perpetrators.

In Case #1, a 23-year-old Akron woman, Ms. Raysean Clark, was shot in the chest by Timothy D. Secession, after he forced his way into her home and began beating her. Clark is still slowly recovering.

In Case #2, a Columbus homeowner used his gun to stop David A. Griffin when he crashed into the home in an attempted home invasion/robbery. When police arrived they found the robber's body lying in the front yard, with gunshot wounds in upper torso.

Since these perpetrators were obviously undeterred by the various and extensive felony laws they were breaking, isn't the more attractive outcome one in which the innocent victim is spared injury? Since future home invasions, car-jackings, muggings, etc. are bound to occur, doesn't the more attractive scenario involve the intended victim being allowed to exercise their right to self-defense?

The Columbus Dispatch's latest editorial on the concealed carry debate presents readers with an interesting problem:

On one hand, the Dispatch editors admit there most certainly is a problem with the current law, which finds persons guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Yet on the other hand, they still claim two lower courts' rulings (which correctly found the law to be unconstitutional) should not be upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Instead, the Dispatch suggests a solution followers of the school funding debacle will likely find repulsive. Their brainy solution? An invitation for the Court to issue a ruling which "clarifies the law's application" (i.e. to legislate)...

(One can also not help but notice the editors attempt to push aside constitutional language which protects citizens' right to bear arms) More on that, and the entire archived editorial, can be accessed by clicking on the "Read More..." link below.

The senior editor from the Columbus Dispatch, Joe Hallet, doesn't want to hear from you. Joe doesn't care what you think, and he dreads the email and voicemail messages he anticipates receiving (and plans on ignoring) after writing his latest anti self-defense editorial (which has been archived, and can be read by clicking on the "Read More..." link below).