By Ken Hanson

We here in the Mentel Ward managed to convince our wardens to allow us to watch some television the other day, so you can imagine our shock in learning of a recent failure of the Mentel Ban on assault weapons in the City of Columbus.

You might recall that under the ban, any center fire rifle that accepts a magazine is considered an "assault weapon". Other features, depending upon the media coverage you are reading, include the ability to spray tens of thousands of armor piercing rounds per pull of the trigger and the ability to make an otherwise law-abiding citizen instantly commit crimes they were not otherwise inclined to commit.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, an overwhelming 115 people out of 730,000 in Columbus complied with the Mentel ban and registered firearms for later destruction, so it appears that the following case should be easily solved...

Channel 4 in Columbus is reporting that neighborhood drug thugs apparently did not like the fact that their neighbors took matters into their own hands and installed some security cameras to document the late-night commerce occurring in the neighborhood. These same drug thugs expressed their displeasure by apparently firing at least one round into the neighbor's house.

By Larry S. Moore

A number of outdoor columnists are reporting on the recently completed deer gun season in Ohio. Many of those columnists end their stories with a recap of the hunting fatalities and incidents in Ohio. It seems like lots of columnist feel obligated to include the statistics in their reports. As an outdoor writer, I hate ending my columns on a negative note. Why end on a negative? I don't understand that. I am safer deer hunting than in any big city in Ohio.

Additionally, they report the incident but never an analysis of the situation, background info, or what laws of nature/God; gun handling safety; and wildlife regulations were broken in the process.

A case in point is the 12 year-old boy in Vinton County that was shot by older brother. With apologies to Paul Harvey, here is the rest of the story...

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

A Tactical Analysis of the Tyler Courthouse Shooting and the Tacoma Mall Shooting

By Syd

For the second time this year, a legally armed citizen armed with a pistol faced a crazed gunman armed with a rifle and did not prevail. In February 2005, Mark Wilson engaged David Arroyo on the steps of the courthouse in Tyler, Texas. Arroyo was wearing body armor and was armed with a Mak-90 7.62x39mm rifle. While Wilson was able to land hits from his .45 pistol on Arroyo, Arroyo's body armor stopped them and Arroyo was able to kill Wilson. On the 20th of November, at a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, Dominick Maldonado opened fire on shoppers with a Norinco Mak-90 rifle. Maldonado, who at the age of 20 already had an extensive arrest record, had been taking methamphetamine for five days. He decided to take out his "rage" against the world by shooting complete strangers. A legally armed citizen, Brendan McKown, chose to intervene. He drew his 9mm pistol but did not fire. Instead, he verbally ordered Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado responded by firing four rounds into McKown's torso. McKown survived his wounds but was grievously injured including a hit to the spine which may leave him unable to walk. Both Mark Wilson and Brendan McKown are the finest kind of people, heroes in truest sense. I would be proud to call either man my friend. Nevertheless, both men were shot and did not succeed in stopping the bad guy in their engagement. The good guys got shot and the bad guys walked away.

These incidents raise troubling questions. This is not the way things are supposed to go. The good guys are supposed to come out on top, or at least they shouldn’t lose their lives or become paralyzed. Were these outcomes simply fate, or could things have been done differently and a different outcome obtained? How do our ethics and religious principles affect our tactical decisions? And most importantly, are there lessons which can be learned from these incidents that could improve the outcome of a similar encounter in the future?

Analysis of these two fights runs the risk of criticizing two brave men who I consider to be heroes, and it's my hope to avoid "Monday morning quarterbacking" although some of that will be necessary. Everything said here is in the context of deepest respect and appreciation for the sacrifices these men made.

Click here for the entire op-ed.