Every neighborhood has one: someone who takes it upon him- or herself to “keep an eye on things.” Not that being seated by the window all day every day peering through the curtains is always a bad thing. Sometimes the self-appointed neighborhood watcher spots activity that needs spotting. Mostly they’re just cranky old get-offa-my-lawn types, nothing more. But John C. Kavan is a curtain twitcher with a difference. He has a gun. Well, had one, anyway . . .

According to triblocal.com, Kavan was driving last week when he came upon a stranded motorist standing by his car and asked if he needed help.

While the man said he ran out of gas, he was able to restart his car. He told Kavan he was waiting for friends to return with more gas, police said.

According to police reports, Kavan told him to leave and pointed a .38 caliber revolver at him. As the motorist drove away, a shot from the handgun shattered the man’s rear driver’s-side window, police said.

It’s no mystery why Kavan stopped, or told the mystery man to start his car, or instructed him to piss off. There’d been a rash of burglaries in Kavan’s hood; the self-appointed guardian had taken his citizen policing on the road. In Kavan’s mind one plus one equalled two.

When questioned by the police, Kavan told officers he only wanted to scare the man. Oops! There goes the first rule of post-defensive (or even offensive) gun use: STFU (Shut the F Up). Post-incident, never tell a policeman anything other than “My life was in danger.” Get a lawyer. STFU.

Before that, Kavan broke the CTCF rule: Call the Cops First. Even if Kavan had “just” brandished his gun at the alleged interloper, he should have called the police immediately. Lest the bad guy do, well, what he did. Putting the legal gun owner behind the eight ball.

Before that, Kavan broke the FCTC rule: First Call the Cops. If you see something suspicious, drop the dime and let the police do their job. In almost every case, dialing 911 before—or instead of—engaging a potentially violent perp saves you the possibility of posing for a mug shot. Or any kind of shot, really (the only gunfight you’re guaranteed to win is the one you don’t have).

All of which makes him a Stupid Gun Owner of the Day. It was Kavan’s decision to fire a parting shot at the non-gas-seeking motorist that elevated him to IGOTD territory. Shooting at someone [allegedly] trying to leave the scene of a crime is illegal (in most states), immoral (in most religions) and wallet-fattening (for any lawyer).

If nothing else, Kavan’s errant shot could have killed an innocent civilian.

I doubt Kavan was trying to kill the not-so-stranded motorist. He was only telling someone he didn’t know to get off of his lawn. Metaphorically speaking. And now that an Illinois Firearms Owner’s ID will no longer be taking up precious space in his wallet, Kavan will be able to fill that new void with a freshly minted IGOTD membership card. Carry it proudly, John. You’ve earned it.

Recommended For You

30 Responses to Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: John Kavan

    • The guy is 70 He is obviously losing it mentally. Doubt this guy will cause us to lose the war or even the battle.

  1. Shame on you for advising criminal and irresponsible gun owners how to get away with it. The STFU rule is nice when you really have a legitimate DGU on you rhands. Otherwise, you’re aligning yourself with criminals and crackpots.

    I like this actually because it supports one of my favorite theories, that there’s little or no difference between the criminal and the law-abiding gun owners in many cases, the gray area I call it.

    • Don’t be using an obviously mentally deteriorating 70 year old to bolster your gun grabbing. I can find plenty of similar Alzheimer types beating their spouse to death with a frozen pot roast.

      • Of course there is. You object to my associating you guys with criminal gun owners, but think about it this way. A guy who breaks a minor rule like carrying concealed in the post office rather than disarming and leaving the gun in the car, in my book, is a million miles from the career criminal who uses a gun for his work. But the post office carrier is in the gray area, he’s no squeaky clean. He cannot claim to be totally law-abiding.

        It’s not a black and white deal. If it were your post office guy would be in the category of the criminals. I don’t put him there.

    • Would mikeb203000 feel better if we just incriminated ourselves? Probably, since he doesn’t respect our other rights either.

    • “he STFU rule is nice when you really have a legitimate DGU on you rhands.”

      Ummm.. Do you now know your Maranda rights?

      You have the right to remain SILENT. ANYTHING you say CAN AND WILL be used AGAINST YOU IN COURT. You have THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand your rights?

      Your reply should ALWAYS be “Yes sir.” and STFU.

      Unfortunately officers dont often pass the professional courtesy down to others so gratefully enjoyed by their fraternal brothers. After a DGU involving an officer, usually the allow the officer to take some time to cool off and collect their thoughts before making an official statement. As a civilian, your on their time. They aren’t going to come back tomorrow and as to speak with you over a cup of coffee. Thats the detectives job, assuming your not incarcerated. The reason for STFU is that you risk a chance of potentially incriminating your self with a poor choice of words. Standing outside your house after a DGU, with your tac-vest/lbe rifle slung over your back eating a ham sandwich boasting about how you just “smoked this perp” is the equivalency of speaking without a lawyer present. Officers are given some investigative training and it’s their job to gather preliminary facts about the bloody mess that has unfolded infront of them. Here in California, just owning a gun makes you a crazed lunatic who has some sick fetish for blood. Your best kept weapon is the weapon of silence. “I feared for my life, and this is the worst thing I have ever done” or however you so choose to phrase is, is about as much as you want to say. After a DGU your going to be in some state of shock. Your mind might be racing, you have officers standing around you, they’re searching you, and making the logical assumption that you might not be who you say your are. You might have shot this guy in cold blood and made all this shit up. In court, the last thing you want to hear is a story about how the officers first on the scene found you and your ham fraking sandwich blabbing about how “thats one less criminal ya’ll gotta deal with now aint it.” If your DGU was legitimate, keep your self out of jail by exercising your right to an attorney. USE IT or LOOSE IT.

      Might I also mention that STFU/Miranda Rights are extended to both criminals and law abiding citizens alike. Joe Scumbag has as much of a right to STFU as Mary J. Victim does.

        • No problem with the grammatical errors, but I am very concerned with the continued erosion of Miranda rights . . . I know that the latest case was about a prisoner and his interrogation, but there are at least two justices who would do away with Miranda.

        • That my friend is a scary thought. Again apologies for the rant.

          Mikeb or whatever his name is obnoxious. He’s a troll at its finest. Cant let his remarks bother me. Half the time he just talks out his you know what.

    • “I like this actually because it supports one of my favorite theories, that there’s little or no difference between the criminal and the law-abiding gun owners in many cases, the gray area I call it.”

      Can you elaborate? What types of cases? What about a self-defense case? Is a person who lawfully uses a gun for self-defense really on the same level as the criminal?

    • Mike, Mike, Mike…. (shakes head)

      You’re no longer content to be working to deny citizens their second amendment rights? Now you’re going to advocate for denying fifth amendment rights to _alleged_ perpetrators??

      Where is your concern for the rights of this _alleged_ defendant? Do you want us to turn into a police state?

      How is telling someone to exercise their rights equivalent to telling them “how to get away with it?” Don’t the police tell them the same thing?

      You’re starting to sound like a Nixon-era law and order man. Were you a fan of Ed Meese, by the way?

  2. Would anyone like it if their local police, having inquired why you were parked illegally, told you to move along…and then fired a shot through your car window just for encouragement? This kind of incident is, for gun-toting seniors, much the same as the negligent accident that gets their drivers license pulled for good. That’s just the process. MikeB: Buon pomeriggio! If the late Justice Jackson said it’s important to tell the public to STFU and retain an attorney when police start asking questions, how on earth can it be a flaw on TTAG? The line between criminals and gun owners? How laughable. You name a public figure and I’ll find a crime he has committed, often but not always unknowingly. That goes for you, too, il mio piccolo impiegato servo.

  3. I had a nosy neighbor that this guy reminded me of. I could constantly see eyeballs through the blinds next door, which creeped me out because it was either 6 in the morning or 11 at night. Seriously, get a #*&@ing hobby or something if you are that bored, jesus.

      • Absolutely. I should have clarified. My only beef was with suggesting that, as a rule, people should drop the dime and call the police at anything suspicious. Sounds too much like a Homeland Security suggestion.

  4. My question is: Why was he in that neighborhood? He said himself “I USED to live here.” Was he originally there stalking his x-wife?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *