Friday, June 17, 2011

Man Shot During Robbery on Monon Trial; Public Safety Director Straub Uses Crime to Put the Blame on the Gun Instead of the Criminal

The Monon Near Nora
Yesterday a 58 year old man was robbed on the Monon near 86th Street in the Nora area. The robbery, which took place in the late afternoon, a time when the trail is very busy, resulted in the man being shot.  The Indianapolis Star reports.
Police said the boy tried to rob, then shot, Gary Bravard, 56, who was walking on the trail at 8300 North at 4:30 p.m. Thursday.

Bravard suffered wounds to his lower body, said officer Catherine Cummings, IMPD spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. He was taken to Methodist Hospital.

Of course, Public Safety Direct Frank Straub used the robbery to suggest the problem was the gun not the punks who committed the crime:
"The fact that you would have two young people engaging in what appears to be a robbery with a weapon yet again suggests that the community and the police really need to pay attention to guns in our community, guns in our homes and access to guns by our young people," Straub said. "This should be a rallying cry for our community to tell young people that this type of activity will not be tolerated."
Of course Mr. Straub misses the obvious point that someone willing to break the law to rob someone will certainly break the law to get the gun in the first place.  What happened on the Monon also illustrates perfectly why the ban on guns in city parks, which on July 1, 2001 will go away thanks to our legislature, is so silly.  All the ban does is take guns away from law-abiding citizens.  Those who would use a gun to commit crimes are not in the slightest bit affected by the ban.

One of the best deterrent against crime is the possibility the criminal may be accosting a person who is armed.  The ban takes that possibility away, leaving a steady stream of unarmed, law-abiding individuals for thugs to prey upon.  Thankfully our legislature saw the folly in that.


M Theory said...

I ride the Monon to the office sometimes.

It is dodgy south of 38th street. I carry mace, but not a gun. If I owned a gun and was competent using one, I would carry a gun for sure.

I fully support citizens carrying weapons on the Monon trail or any other place where a crime may occur. Hopefully, if I am ever robbed a citizen is nearby with a gun ready to help.

Nicolas Martin said...

I live at 80th and Monon. I strongly want the government to stop preventing me from carrying a weapon when I'm using the Monon.

In an earlier story the Star quoted Nora-Northside Community Council President Ruth Hayes about the shooting. (She was against it.) Her group, which has even opposed allowing Target to have a small booze section, has very few members, none of whom are elected by our neighborhoods, and doesn't make any attempt to sample opinion. There is no reason for the Star to take this group seriously.

By the way, when I recently went to the web to renew my carry permit the site noted that it takes a couple of months to be renewed. That delay constitutes an unacceptable de facto gun control.

Paul K. Ogden said...


The law changes as of 7/1 thanks to our legislature. Of course, you remember coucilor Ed Coleman introduced a measure to make it legal to carry guns in city parks and Mayor Ballard threatened to veto it. The Republicans on the Parks Committee, led by Susie Day, ended up tabling it.

I know Ruth Hayes opposed the shooting, who wouldn't?, but did she oppose the Coleman gun measure? I've been on the same side of her on a lot of an issue. Sorry to hear she was on the wrong side of the Target booze issue.

Nicolas Martin said...

I make no effort to keep up with legislative antics, so I didn't know about the Jul 1 law change.

Do you know anything about the delay in getting a carry permit?

Ruth Hayes is entitled to voice her opinion, but not entitled to claim that she speaks for anyone but herself and her tiny group.

Nicolas Martin said...

After submitting an online application for a gun permit this message appears:

You have the option to expedite the handling of your application by scheduling an appointment with L-1 Identity Solutions to submit your fingerprints electronically to the Indiana State Police. L-1 will also collect your state application fee. This is voluntary and there is an additional charge of $10.95.

The Indiana State Police is receiving a large number of applications which is causing a backlog. Applicants who have used L-1 for electronic fingerprinting have received their permits within 10-14 days upon their applications being transmitted to the Indiana State Police. Applications submitted with a paper fingerprint cards are taking 30 - 60 days to process.

Doesn't help people who need to protect themselves today, does it?

Paul K. Ogden said...

No, it doesn't NM, and I would be suspicious of the motives for such a policy.

Blog Admin said...

What say you about Straub's rhetoric, Paul? It sounds eerily similar to what the Brady gun ban group sounds like, if you ask me.

marksmall2001 said...

This sounds vaguely to my left-wing ears like the possibility for a good, old-fashioned, Chatauqua-style debate. Resolved: that the Second Amendment should be repealed. And NM, before try to you rip me on my opinion, pause for a moment. I suggest a debate. Too often people slam others for having an opinion. Hey! I know! I have a camera and a web site. Or we could do it live. (And not Live! as in Indiana Casino Live!)In front of an audience someplace. Whay say you, Paul? Know of anyone who would be interested to defend an antiquated aspect of the Constitution. Although I still defend the Third Amendment, the most unappreciated and effective.)

Unigov said...

marksmall2001 - the 2nd Amendment only exists as a backstop to protect the rights of the people to be armed. Repeal the amendment and people still have the right to be armed.

The 9th amendment makes this clear, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Take away the whole bill of rights and the people still have the right to be armed...without gun permits and all that stuff that began as a way to disarm black people.

Cato said...


If we're going to play with amending the Constitution, I'm up for repealing the entire thing. You game for a discussion of that?

Further, as Unigov well argued, we have the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human right, wholly independent of any constitution or declaration of rights.

Paul K. Ogden said...


I would agree. Straub chooses his words carefully but it's clear he thinks guns are the problem not the individuals.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Unigov, please not that 9th Amendment argument. That's what liberal judges often use to justify "finding" new rights that people have. Going down that road leads to government by the judiciary and not government by elected representatives.

Someone needs to take Mark up on his offer. He runs a very classy show.

By the way, the Founding Fathers fully expected the Constitution to be regularly amended. I think they would be shocked by the attitude today that every word is perfect and above being revisited. Personally I'd like to House members serve four year terms and perhaps a requirement they live in their districts.

Nicolas Martin said...

Judges don't "find" rights. The people have a right to do anything peaceful from birth. The problem with liberal judges is that they create "positive" rights, which are not rights but coercive entitlements.

To illustrate: gay people have the right to get married, but they have no right to force an employer to hire them or a landlord to rent to them. (Note that it was legislatures, not judges, who pushed us into the era of "positive" rights.)

I have a right to seek medical care, but I have no right to force a doctor to treat me, or to have government to force others to pay my bills.

Government has no legitimate power to deprive people of unenumerated "negative" rights.

Rothbard touches on this in The Ethics of Liberty

The Ninth Amendment has lost none of its importance, and it is not the basis the invention of repressive "positive" rights.

marksmall2001 said...

Sorry that I did not get back to this thread until now. I was researching for a piece I am writing about the right to "cross over" in primary voting. The idea of debating repeal of the entire Constitution sounds cool to me. I would want to discuss parameters. By that I mean to break down sub-topics. E.g., the nature of one's obligation to the State (as sovereign); the legitimacy of the original Constitution; what would replace the Constitution (if anything). I would want the argument to be coherent, and breaking it down into components, I think, lends itself to coherence. E-mail me so that we can talk.