March 13, 2008

UNC Murder Suspect Also a Duke Murder Suspect

From WRAL:

A teen arrested in the death of a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student has also been charged in connection with the death of a Duke University graduate student.

Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr., 17, of 1213 Shepherd St., was arrested Thursday morning and charged with murder in UNC Student Body President Eve Carson's March 5 death. Authorities also charged him in connection with the January shooting death of Duke student Abhijit Mahato.

I'd like to know if investigators intend to ask Lovette and fellow Eve Carson murder suspect Demario James Atwater why they targeted college students.

Think it had anything to do with the strong suspicion that their victims would be unarmed?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 02:13 PM

God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting.

Posted by: dude at March 13, 2008 02:30 PM

Really? I think the distinct possibility that we have two dead students--and several more the victims of armed robbers just this week alone--inside campus grounds because students are known to be unarmed (whereas the general population in the area outside of these campuses is well known to contain the second-highest concentration of concealed carry permit holders in the state) is certainly a topic worth discussing.

Or would you rather that more students be targeted because you don't want to ask difficult questions?

Somehow, I suspect I know the answer...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 02:42 PM

I'd just say that the Research Triangle is becoming a dangerous place to be a student...

Posted by: Techie at March 13, 2008 02:46 PM

For what it's worth even if they were allowed too, alot of students would choose NOT to carry a gun, even at their own peril. Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one. It's sad though, these people are constant targets to resentful townie's and other predators.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 03:53 PM

Having lived in the Triangle for the past 5 years going graduate school at NC State, I can tell you this violence is nothing new at all. Pretty much weekly we would have armed robberies on campus, and the tactics were becoming more and more brazen (one of the last incidents I remember, was two youths with guns robbing a group of 10 or so students). Murders happened and made the news for a day or so. What makes this situation different is it was a pretty blond up and coming girl from a well to do family that was murdered. Not guns or availability of them. Durham has some areas even the police will not go to. Though my wife was doing her residency at Duke we purposely chose to live over 30 minutes away from there, and even then the crime was reaching out. Ask yourself, how many murders happen in the US in a day, then ask yourself how many of them make the spotlight unless they are of a pretty white female..

Posted by: jambrowski at March 13, 2008 05:01 PM

"Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one."

Both victims were over 21, neither has been shown to have a criminal record and both were residents of North Carolina for at least 30 days. More than likely, both victims would have been eligible. There is no way to know if they were inclined to exercise their rights, but they should have the option.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 05:13 PM

Even if you are not a resident, and live on campus, all you have to do is get an NC state drivers license. You are then eligible to receive a CCW. NC is a shall issue, and an open carry state, so even if they could not get CCW, they can legally open carry anyplace that is not deemed gun free. Echoing Dog, but with a bit less tact. If they are allowed, but choose not to, then that is a failing on their part.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM

And, of course, even if only 5% of the students availed themselves of their right to concealed-carry, the criminals wouldn't know *which* 5% carries, so would be deterred from all of them.

Posted by: Zach at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM

It's news because random murders like these are statistically rare. Something like 60% of all murders are black men killing other black men. That's terrible, but it's not news because it happens with such frequency.

There are very few random murders, and very few black man/white woman random murders. Especially of blond, smart, prominent victims on a college campus.

Posted by: BarrySanders20 at March 13, 2008 05:47 PM

Allowing CCW on campus would not increase the gun crime rate; that's a gunbanner myth. There's no one single jurisdiction where it's been approved that the crime rate went up as a result.

In most places it's banned the real reason is ''because we can''.

Posted by: Orion at March 13, 2008 05:56 PM

They're probably working on a resolution to condemn the victim for being part of the oppressive white establishment that forced these two young men down the path of violence.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM

BarrySanders20 is a fool, black on white crime has exploded exponentially in the past two decades. Fact, a white woman is 115 TIMES more likely to be raped by a black man than if the races were reversed. This is according to Gov't crime statistics that they are trying hard not to get into the MSM, look it up, fool!

Posted by: libsukbad at March 13, 2008 06:05 PM

The Triangle has some great areas and some quite bad areas. Duke has some very dangerous areas right next to the campus. A friend of mine (a female grad student) was robbed at knifepoint walking home for lunch from campus. Broad daylight.

UNC is safer, but yeah there's a lot of racial tension in the area. Franklin Street is the hangout area. On a typical Friday night going down that one street, you hit first the student area, then there is a stretch where local black kids hang out, then there is the section for young adult white townies. You can see all the racial and class divisions laid out very clearly on any weekend night.

There's more resentment to the Duke students since they tend to be richer and from NY/New Jersey. When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men. Most of the girls I dated were scared to go to Durham. A lot of very aggressive panhandling and begging. The black panhandlers stayed near campus, while the white mountain man panhandlers tended to stay on the intersection near the local Wal-mart. Oddest form of self-segregation I'd ever seen.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Southern liberal college towns. I like having over-educated waiters and plentiful live music -- and the surrounding Southern culture prevents the college town from going totally crazy.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:08 PM

In the account of the crime I read, Ms. Carson was said to have been set upon by the beast around five in the morning -- before dawn, while out alone and at an ATM machine. If such are the facts, this fine young lady showed a lamentable want of good judgment. To linger alone, and in the dark, near an ATM is to court danger, whether you be a woman or a man, and whether the neighborhood be good or bad. May Ms. Carson rest in peace.

Posted by: Silber Streak at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM

What has struck me since moving to the Triangle is how lax the court system is here. Over and over you read stories of murders or rapes that are committed by people either out on bail or who have multiple convictions for breaking and entering, A&B, or armed robbery. If the court system in Wake and Durham counties would focus more on locking people up than letting them go, we might have less of this nonsense.

Posted by: YankeeConfederate at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM


We have more than two dead students; We have unarmed dead student after unarmed dead student for as far back as you want to look. And you complain because someone is looking at how this happens? Disgusting.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM

"When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men.'

I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's. You did tend to see a concentration of older, poorer folks around that place, but they tended to stay there. At that time, crime was pretty rare, and the Franklin Street merchants were vigilant about getting panhandlers off the streets and away from the students/shoppers. Street musicians were always there, but they were not only non-threatening, but usually pretty talented. Where else can you hear bagpipes playing at 1 am?

When I went back for a conference in 2003 or so, the mood had changed. The panhandlers were younger, far greater in number, and far more aggressive. I didn't see any attempts being made to get them off the benches or to stop them from harassing people on the street. I was both surprised and saddened to feel so harassed while walking so close to campus in the daytime. I used to walk home at 3 in the morning there and not worry about it. Looks like things have really changed.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM

The primary animal in this case was on 24 months probation for a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. That's a Federal crime folks, and I believe it is a felony under North Carolina law as well.

Somewhere out there is a judge who handed down a pathetic sentence and a DA who accepted it, and didn't refer the case to the Feds. Both should share in the murderer's punishment.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 13, 2008 06:30 PM

"I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's."

I have been in NC off and on since the late 90s, and I agree, things have changed a good bit.

I am in Jacksonville, back when I first got stationed here it wasnt too bad. I could take a date out, walk around all night and people would tend to leave you alone (minus the occasional drunk Marine in a bar hitting on your woman). A year or so ago a skinny little guy tried to mug my then soon to be wife while we were out walking our dog. I do not know what kind of idiot tries to mug a large bald guy walking a 95 pound GSD, but it happened.

Maybe things aren't getting worse. Maybe the criminals are just getting dumber?

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:33 PM

I remember talking to one of the shop owners there on Franklin St. He'd complained to the town council when they installed those benches -- he said the homeless guys would just sit there all day and intimidate his customers. Especially since his business catered primarily to women ... but Chapel Hill told him he was being bigoted and installed them anyway.

I was there from 2001-2005. I felt safest in Chapel Hill. In Durham several times panhandlers would follow me to my car coming out of a bar late at night asking for money. Not a pleasant feeling. I didn't feel safe there alone as a guy, so I understand why so many of the girls I knew were afraid to go.

Southern college towns have that mix of young well-educated super liberal whites, and poor blacks ... so they tend to be very lenient to things like aggressive panhandling. At least that's my experience. Plus, the relatively wealthy young white college kids (especially the girls) give the beggars money cause they feel guilty for being ... white and better off.

Just to be clear, though. I loved my time there. And although some parts are sketchy ... nothing's as bad as when I dated a girl who was studying at Johns Hopkins in downtown Baltimore. Oh, man. Baltimore is terrifying outside of the Inner Harbor and Camden Yards. Some parts are like Escape From New York. Everything is just decaying.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:42 PM

Dude, how would you define the term "cheap shot"?

Posted by: buddy larsen at March 13, 2008 06:45 PM

I was in Peppers Pizza on Franklin Street last fall. It was a Saturday afternoon and a beautiful day - full of families, students, etc. A homeless black man came in (I mention race only in the context of the story) and started trying to panhandle from the people eating. A man I assume to be the manager (also a black man) came over and politely but firmly told the guy he needed to go. The homeless guy started screaming F him and how no black people (he used the n word) were welcome there and he would kill anyone who disrespected him and on and on and on. I was sitting there with my wife and 3 month old daughter and was certain violence was going to break out. Fortunately, someone snagged a foot patrol of Chapel Hill police and they managed to get the guy out of there and took him into what looked like protective custody.

That was the first time I did not feel safe in the Triangle. I wish the law and order crowd was a bit more vocal and stronger down here.

Posted by: local at March 13, 2008 06:56 PM

In the early '80s we had a rash of armed robbery on and around Vanderbilt campus. The fellow knew he had a lot of fairly well-off unarmed kids he could scare and intimidate. This only stopped when a plain-clothes campus cop put six holes in him durring another attempted robbery of what he most certainly thought was an unarmed student.

Bad guys are motivated by risk and fear. Do nothing to affect either and you just get more and bolder bad guys.

Posted by: s at March 13, 2008 07:04 PM

A small point: a weapon and a CCW do nothing to protect you and the people around you.

Unless --

-- you have sufficient training to know what to do and how to do it.

You have to be alert enough to the situation, be able to stay calm and read the situation correctly, be able to draw your weapon without getting plugged whilst reaching for it, level, aim, shoot, and hit what you're shooting at.

If you can't do those things, you're pretty much useless, or worse, a danger to everyone else.

I write that and it sounds obvious, but it really isn't when people talk about CCW and shall-issue. It's not enough to buy a pistol and pack heat.

And so the question becomes, just how many people have the inner skills and the training to be useful in a terrible emergency?

Not as many as buy a pistol for 'protection'.

Near where I live (northern Illinois) we had a terrible shooting at the University. The shooter was a nutter, of course, and all the students could do is hide and run. But even if one of them had had a pistol, there's no guarantee at all that the outcome would have been different.

My point, I hope, is a simple one: it's not sufficient to have CCW. We need a sea-change in attitude and mindset. One in which more of our citizens, sober, careful, determined, and perhaps a little grim, ensure that in an emergency, they can be useful.

If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steve White at March 13, 2008 07:44 PM

I've lived in Durham since 1976, off and on. I've worked as a reporter and I've been part of the community, walking alone downtown at night, for three decades. Yes, I've seen aggressive panhandlers. Yes, I've seen groups of young men who made me uneasy. Yes, our house was burglarized in 1983.

But in 30 years I've never seen anyone so much as slapped.

That's not to say there isn't violent crime, but all of you who afraid to come to Durham need to get a grip. This isn't Newark.

In a few weeks, downtown Durham will be filled with film makers, from Martin Scorcese to young unknowns with a camera and a dream, for the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. They're not afraid.

The Triangle is growing and there's a lot of money and a lot of poverty. Gangs have marked their turf and sociopaths know where to pick up a gun. This group of communities numbers more than a million. Yes, there are tensions. But why do so many of you choose to live your lives in fear?

I thought this was the home of the brave.

You know, Michael Peterson killed his wife and people weren't suddenly afraid of white novelists, thank God, or I'd never get another party invitation.

The reason people around here are so focused on the murder of Eve Carson has less to do with her being an attractive white girl than it does the senseless waste of a brilliant, engaging leader with more promise than 100 of her classmates put together.

I can't speak for Nancy Grace's obsession.

That woman's just crazy.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:03 PM

"God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting. "


People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue. I'm sure his comments aren't the "only" thing he can think of - but they're certainly one of the more obvious -- at least to us responsible adults who actually have to live in the real world vs. sticking our heads in the sand.

Posted by: Tim in TX at March 13, 2008 08:15 PM

"If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter."

This is very true. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. No one, not one single person, can honestly say how they will react to a given situation, until they have been in it, and most of the time they will not have reacted the way they wanted to.

If you have not mentally prepared yourself to act, then you will not. If you do not act, then that weapon WILL be used against you.

Simply going to the range and blowing off a thousand rounds a weekend will not prepare you to defend yourself.

I am an assistant instructor at the MSOS, and I teach part time at one of the local ranges. When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves.

Defense is a mindset, if you do not have it, then you will die, and you are a liability to those around you.

in a stressful situation your accuracy will drop between 50 and 70%. Simply plinking targets will not help you with this.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:18 PM

Amen, Matt.

I shoot well for a weekend plinker and feel quite qualified to defend myself against any intruder as long as they stand still at 15 yards and hold an orange dot against their center mass.

The first time I was fired on I instantly became one with the earth, my molecules integrating with the dirt, desiring nothing more than to be invisible to the rounds smacking over my head.

It seemed like hours before I thought to return fire and by then it was over. That's after six months of training.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:26 PM

David, I thank you for your candor. There are not many that can speak with modesty. It is an odd feeling, is it not?

"People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue"

Ok, it is story time.

Several years ago I was in Fallujah during the second push as well as after the push. After the push the theater commander decided that he was going to rescind the law governing weapons in the hands of the people (that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops.

As a Corporal at the time I obviously had no say in the matter, but I thought it was insanely frigging stupid. Did I say it was a stupid idea? Ok I did. That may be part of the reason I am still a Sergeant after ten years of service.

Well anyway. Once that command was given we saw a FRIGGING huge jump in SVBIEDs (if you don't know what that is Google it). Come to find out, the bad guys found out about this new "law" and exploited it. Because the honest civilian populous was nolonger armed, they were able to walk into any house on the block, yoke up momma and kiddies, then say "Drive this car into that ECP or momma dies."

After a bit of time, we dumped this stupid frigging law, and allowed the civilan populace to own and carry again. Guess what? We started to find more dead bad guys in the alleys, and the SVBIEDs tapered off. I frigging wonder why?

Care to take a guess?

I know that the U.S. is NOT Iraq. But the lesson is the SAME FRIGGING ONE WE HAVE TO LEARN HERE!

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:59 PM

"(that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops."

Crap, I am an idiot. That did not make any sense at all.

It should have read. (the previous law said every fighting aged male was allowed ect) but we took the weapons away because we wanted to make sure that only the bad guys had guns so we didnt shoot the wrong people.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:02 PM

Ha. It's OK, Matt, I got the drift. God forbid I get held up for my drunken syntax at 10 pm.

I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences.

Here in the US, training is all. I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school), but if you even suggest this, the 2nd Amendment absolutists burst into flames.

I don't know. I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand. I think these two b*stards are just sociopaths doing a bit of B&E. We'll see. But I don't think gun laws have anything to do with their crime, unless it is the ease with which bad actors like these can get their hands on one. Anyone want to bet it was stolen? I'll give good odds.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 09:15 PM

David. You seem to be a good egg. You really do.

All I am saying is please be prepared to use, if you have to.

I do not think that any classes should be required to carry, encouraged by a tax credit or something if you do receive professional training, but not required. Owning is a right, you can not require something, when it is a right.

"I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences."

I hear ya brother. It would have been shitty call, either way they went. I want to bring everyone home. But at the same time, I don't want to restrict the rights of honest people. That was the point of my idiocy above.

"I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school),"

Nothing wrong with either of those weapons. I own them myself, and CC a full sized Kimber Custom Covert II (hey I am a big guy, I can CC a 1911). But good training is a must, IMHO, and if you are ever down in J-Ville, and near the Sports Mans lodge, I will give ya all the training you need. Or if you want to go the harder route, join the Corps, do a few years in the grunts. Then come to RSAS, and after ya pass that you will see me at the MSOS (that place is a black hole that I will never get out of).

"I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand."

Well of course not, and please do not get me started on the non existent problem that the .40 attempts to solve.

But in all seriousness. Be it BnE, or whatever. If she had owned, and had been trained. She may have lived. If she died after that, at least she went out like she came in. Fighting.

Even with all the insane gun-laws we have, it is still easier to get a weapon off the street than it is to get one legally. But, it does tend to cost a bit more (depending on what you want).

Give me seven hundred and I can get you a Glock 30 with no serial.

Take 550 and go through getting a permit, then after waiting for a permit, you can buy your weapon (some states differ).

Gun laws only keep honest people honest. Nothing more.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:34 PM

Not that Ms. Carson's unfortunate judgment would help anyone, but as to being armed, whether or not you are a sharp marksmen, or even armed personally, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the criminal has a reasonable expectation that his efforts *might* be met with deadly force. Criminals understand logic, too, folks. Their moral judgment may be twisted, but their logical judgment is often reasonably sound.

Save for the occasional Chicago or VaTech psycho who gives little or no warning before completely losing his grasp on reality, most criminals commit crime with the expectation of getting a reward out of it. The reward may be an economic gain, a material gain, sexual gratification, or simply the adrenaline rush from getting away with an act of violence, but there is an expectation of getting a reward. Similarly, when there is a negative incentive, crime is less likely to occur. An average wallet-and-car-keys theft is generally committed by someone who has an expectation of getting rich today, and generally not by someone who expects he might get shot.

It doesn't mean the victim MUST be carrying. It just means that there is a real and randomized uncertainty as to whether the victim MIGHT be carrying. And if given a choice between a random citizen who might be carrying, and a naiive coed who is almost guaranteed not to be on account of well-known school policies, the criminal picks the easy target nine out of ten times.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, except possibly for self-blinded ideologues.

Posted by: anony_mouse_ at March 13, 2008 10:10 PM

As a Duke alum who also is a strong 2nd amendment and pro-gun advocate, I must also admit that instinctively my first thought to this post (which I agree does raise a topic worth discussing) was, oh hell no, with all the frats and sororities and the heavy partying and extreme drunkenness that goes with it I would not want guns on campus.

Posted by: ER at March 13, 2008 10:15 PM

Matt wrote:

"When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves."

I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire.

Posted by: Ripper at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM

Steve, Matt, David, Ripper et al.,

Your comments are true from the point of view of the possessor of the CCW permit. However, if the restrictions against concealed carry by CCW permit holders on campus are removed or annulled then the dirtbags searching for easy targets no longer have reason to assume that the local college campus is full of them. The risk/reward equation tilts toward going elsewhere. Though practicing fast draw and target acquisition is a very good thing for the permit holder to do, most of the guys you're worrying about aren't thinking "I can probably get them before they get me." They're thinking "I might get killed."

While shooting these characters may be satisfying, better that they should all go to DC and start robbing city council members.

One thing made VERY clear in the CCW classes is that if you start waving your firearm around while drunk the permit is gone for a long long time if not permanently.

That however raises the heavily ironic possibility of a guy attacking someone from the unarmed party sorority being blown away by someone from Kappa Kappa Gamma or Hillel.

Posted by: Ed Nutter at March 13, 2008 10:54 PM

It wonders me. Why, in every discussion of right to carry VS "Free Fire Zones" the ratbag scum committing the (insert violent crime of choice here___________) with a gun in his hand couldn't miss a flea on a running mongrel's ear at five hundred yards, but someone who wants to carry a defensive gun couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Someone wanna 'splain it to me?

Posted by: Gerry N. at March 14, 2008 12:47 AM

Abhijit Mahato and Eve Carson both lived off campus. Mahato was found shot dead in his apartment. Eve was found shot dead several blocks from her home, wearing a t-shirt and no jacket. LE says the ATM photos show the driver and someone else behind him with his back to the camera. I think Eve was abducted from her home, taken to the ATM, and was being held at gunpoint by the guy in back with her. I think both murders could have been prevented if the victims had guns they knew how to use at hand.

Posted by: DebinNC at March 14, 2008 01:37 AM

"I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire."

Well that is pretty frigging stupid. No offense, but I hate Cali, I hated it when I was there, I hated it when I went back, and I do not see much changing. But maybe I am missing something here. But just because they will not let you quick draw, does not mean you can not snap in on your own. Even allowing the weapon do drop down to your side, then rapidly acquiring the target will help. That is not rapid fire ;).

"They're thinking "I might get killed."

Call it a fringe benefit.

"Someone wanna 'splain it to me?"

First off, who said anything of the sort?

Secondly. If a bad guy is trying to rob ten people, aims at one, but hits another, then he did not miss. But if someone is carrying legally, fires on the bad guy, misses, and the projectile hits little old lady crossing the street, then he/she frigging missed.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:33 AM

After listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons, I wonder why there is not more of this type of crime every day, everywhere where oblivious young white women come into close contact with young black men full of violence and entitlement-fueled hatred.

Posted by: Al Fin at March 14, 2008 07:51 AM

David, your initial reaction to being shot at is one of the reasons for CCW. If you have a gun, but aren't ready to use it (and nobody is really ready, the first time), you become a ventilated ammo depot and source of a shiny new sidearm for the crooks...

IF they know you have a gun.

One cowering victim looks pretty much like another to a gun-wielding crook, as long as you aren't open carrying (or wearing a police/army uniform, waving your gun like a flag, etc). Most criminals aren't going to pat people down for extra weapons; they're in an even bigger hurry than their victims, which is why "WALLETS! NOW!!" is usually all you'll get out of them. CCW, if you take the "concealed" part seriously, will keep you alive (if victimized) in your critical first encounter, and more importantly, keep your gun out of the hands of people more willing to use it.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at March 14, 2008 09:11 AM

"(and nobody is really ready, the first time)"

Much of the time they are not ready the second or third or fourth time either.

But there are things you can do to help prepare yourself.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:56 PM

Will the Take Back The Night clowns, the Duke faculty fools, and other dopey Durham activists who held canfdlelight vigils and marches against the falsely accused Duke lacrosse guys (ostensibly to protest abuse of women) even make a peep about this case? I doubt it.

Posted by: MJ at March 14, 2008 08:38 PM

What the hell is wrong with you people? This is not a gun control issue, this is about a society that is fundamentally BROKEN. It's about two people who should've never been born because their parents were clearly not up to the task of raising two actual HUMAN BEINGS. Do you really think arming students is going to change what is at the root of senseless acts of violence like this? If you do, you're an idiot. For Christ's sake, wake the hell up and think about why we have so much senseless violence in this country. It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws. It's about raising children to be decent human beings and not pieces of human excrement like the two scumbags who took this beautiful life. Duh.

Posted by: Mark at March 17, 2008 10:33 PM

"It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws."

There sir you are incorrect.

While things may have turned out different if their parents would have parented them, there is not much you can do to change that. There will always be bad parents. We attempt to educate people, we do what we can to make good parents. But the bottom line here is this, you can not make people do the right things. But you can give honest people the tools to protect themselves against idiots.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:51 PM