On HR297

I also agree with Alphecca and Clayton Cramer regarding HR297.

Two more points regarding this bill.

HR297 is introduced as

A Bill
To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

then goes on to say:

and for other purposes.

Excuse me?

Why "and for other purposes"?

I thought it was simply to improve the background check system so that those judged as "mentally ill" would be barred from getting a firearm.

Period.

What's with "and for other purposes"? Is that standard legal language on a bill? Maybe someone out there can help me understand that part because I'm thinking "possible loophole."

And since McCarthy introduced the bill, I'm inclined to think the "other purposes" means further gun control measures piggybacked onto this bill.

The other point is one a sharp-eyed reader made on Alphecca's post.

In "Section 3. Definitions," the bill says:

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

But here's section 922(g)(4):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution...
...to receive any firearm...

It doesn't say squat!

The "Mental Health Terms" from HR297 are not elaborated on in that part of the U.S. Code despite the implication that it would. It just says the same thing.

So if "adjudicated as a mental defective" and its related terms aren't even defined, who's going to define them? Who's going to perform the adjudication?

And the bigger question--at least in my mind--will it be unbiased and non-political?

We can only hope.

Again, if there are any legal types out there with a better understanding of language use in this bill, please clue me in. It's possible I'm missing something in my reading.

Proud to Carry

From Clayton Cramer's site.

Oh, if only that were so.

But I'm apt to think it'd be hard here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Sadly.

Missing the Point All Over Again

Today's Washington Post editorial seems to be on the right track but for this:

An impeccable federal background check database would make it more difficult for dangerous people to illegally obtain guns.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Note the phrase "would make it more difficult for dangerous people to illegally obtain guns."

A distorted view: Just because of an "impeccable" background check, criminals will no longer illegally acquire contraband items.

They expect criminals to suddenly start obeying laws?

As before: ban or no ban, impeccable background check or not, criminals (or extremely determined people) will get guns.

Myth Busting

John Stossel has it right.

If any myth had to be busted it's the myth that gun control equals crime control.

Sad to say: it just isn't true.

Brief Notes II

More tidbits:

• Defensive gun use in Ohio. Kudos to the Columbia Dispatch for not falling prey to anti-gun bias.
• Let's hope people read this piece and pass it on to their friends.
• Arkansas takes a stand. I'm glad to see lawmakers showing good sense.
• Anti-gunner Schumer said what? (Hat tip to Clayton Cramer's BLOG)
• Wasn't aware of this group but hey, more power to them.

Carrying On Campus

From Salt Lake City comes this story.

"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.

Well said.

At least some folks are on the right track.

On "Gun Free Zones," Part Six

Columbine. Virginia Tech. Trolley Square, Utah.

Aside from being the site of mass shootings, these locations had one other thing in common.

They were "Gun Free Zones."

Yet despite that classification, tragedy still struck.

What's the solution, you ask?

Well, if you listen to the anti-gunners, they'll tell you what we need are more gun laws. Better gun laws. Stricter gun laws. In fact, an outright ban on guns would be ideal.

But think for a moment.

Think.

Who will obey those better, stricter gun laws?

If you said "law-abiding citizens," you are correct.

Will a criminal obey that same law?

Not bloody likely.

And that's the truth that either eludes the anti-gun camp or that they deny altogether.

Ban or no ban, a criminal will get a gun.

Until those in power get that through their thick heads, the likelihood of another Virginia Tech is ever-present.

But from what I've seen, those in power are clueless.

Which means we are in deep shit.

On "Gun Free Zones," Part Five

Yet another interesting read here, from John Lott's website.

Looks like even a Canadian can acknowledge the problem.

Why can't we?

Suzanna Gratia Hupp

Got the following in my United States Concealed Carry Association Weekly Newsletter and had to share it.

A Sensible Reaction, Revisited

Follow up to yesterday's post.

While a step in the right direction, it can pose problematic questions in certain situations.

Consider the following examples.

A man begins to suffer from severe depression after a spate of bad luck Let's say he lost his job just after his wife died and now he's been diagnosed with cancer. Is he mentally ill? Now let's say his luck turns around, he gets a new job and the cancer diagnosis was actually a mistake. He's no longer depressed. What is he now?

A man who has lost touch with reality, hears voices telling him to do certain things, sees visions of the future, and has homicidal tendencies goes to work every morning in a brokerage firm and is known to his colleagues as a "regular Joe" and praised by his supervisor as "a sharp young man with a bright future." Is he mentally ill? More to the point, if he can fool his co-workers, can he fool the physician who tests him for mental illness?

Hopefully with enough time, detailed investigation, and healthy debate, we can solve these dilemmas to everyone's satisfaction.

But I still agree: the mentally unstable--properly judged--should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Still Missing the Point

Funny how the majority of anti-gun news stories, interviews, panel discussions, and op-eds in the days since Virginia Tech continually miss three important points.

First, gun bans won't prevent a criminal or determined person from getting a gun.

Second, place the blame on the correct party: the shooter.

Third, instead of calling for more legistation, call for better enforcement of existing legislation.

Yet those three points are continually overlooked (perhaps even denied) and the misguided plunge ahead with blinders on.

Who's To Blame?

Let's play "The Blame Game."

The same thing happened after Columbine. A surge of distorted media coverage and incessant finger-pointing that, in the end, failed to see the point.

what the media obscured in the rush to place blame on businesses and current gun laws was that only one person was responsible for the Virginia Tech tragedy. The Roanoke Firearms Web site reminded people of this:

“One individual bears the responsibility for the heinous acts committed at Virginia Tech, and that is Cho Seung-Hui.”

With a tip of the hat to Pro-Gun Progressive.

Missing The Point

Despite their ban on the private ownership of handguns, Nagasaki mayor Iccho Ito fell victim to one.

And now they plan even stricter regulations. Yet despite the laws

high-profile gunbattles between gangsters have increased. Of the 53 shootings reported in 2006, two-thirds — 36 — were blamed on organized crime groups, the National Police Agency says.

I've said it before. I'll say it again: ban or no ban, criminals will get guns.

On a related note is this story.

No matter how many more stricter laws are passed, the fact is plain:

Tough laws, however, haven't been foolproof.

Britain's gun homicides have gone up and down in recent years despite its tougher laws.

In 1998, when the Dunblane-inspired handgun ban took effect, there were 49 gun homicides, Britain's Home Office says. Firearm homicides spiked at 95 in 2001, dropped to 68 in 2003, rose again the next year to 77, and have declined steadily since. Last year, there were 46.

There's also a bit of denial going on here.

The report goes on to say:

So would the Virginia Tech shooting have been averted if the U.S. had tighter gun control? Nicholas Marsh, an expert on small weapons at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, isn't so sure.

"I think it's very difficult to state that if the law had been different, it wouldn't have happened," he said. "Obviously, if someone is that determined to get a gun, in most countries it's not that difficult."

Echoes just what I said earlier about criminals getting a gun, ban or no ban.

But then we're told:

But Marsh, an advocate of basic gun controls, says making it harder to walk into a shop and walk out with a gun could make a difference.

Essentially: "Even with tight restrictions, a determined person can get a gun. Let's tighten the restrictions."

...huh...?

A Sensible Reaction

Virginia's Governor Kaine has the right idea.

I fully advocate gun ownership for all--except for violent felons and the mentally ill.

There will be those who ask "How do you classify 'mentally ill'? Or 'violent felon'? " I could be mistaken but I believe demonstrable evidence would suffice. For example, a person who brutally murders others again and again I'd call a violent felon.

Keep in mind, however, that a blanket statement of mental illness would dilute the essence of such a law. A case-by-case judgment would be better.

Given Kaine's actions in handling the aftermatch of Virginia Tech, I don't think this is a knee-jerk reaction. Unless proven otherwise, it seems like sensible legislation in action.

More sensible than a call for a total gun ban.

P.S. This bit is rather interesting:

Virginia is relatively aggressive in reporting mental health records to the federal system that gun sellers use for background checks of potential buyers. Virginia was the first state to develop a system to provide background checks for firearms purchases -- four years before the 1993 federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act set up the national system.

Wonder what the Brady Campaign thinks of that.

Brief Notes

Here's a few tidbits:

• This looks good. Especially telling is the following statement from Phillip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

  "They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves."

• Here's a university professor who gets it:

  If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England.

• And an op-ed piece from American Spectator.

Makes You Wonder...

According to Morgan Quitno Press, an independent private research and publishing company based in Kansas, the top five safest states of 2007 were:

1. North Dakota
2. Vermont
3. Maine
4. New Hampshire
5. Wyoming

Wanna know what else they have in common?

All five didn't make the grade with the Brady Bunch's 2005 State Report Card. North Dakota got a D; Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire got a D-; and Wyoming got an F.

For the Brady Bunch, these five states failed to protect families from gun violence.

"Failed to protect families from gun violence" translates--at least to me--as "unsafe." "Dangerous."

Yet an independent research company ranked them the five safest states.

Does the Brady Campaign know something we don't?

Commentary: "A Nation of Cowards"

In Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Wayne LaPierre quotes several passages from Jeffrey Snyder's essay "A Nation of Cowards." Reading these extracts made me search out the complete essay.

What I read turned my stomach and pissed me off, but proved extremely thought-provoking.

Snyder's scathing and damning critique of our society is dead-on and if you disagree you're kidding yourself.

There's nothing wrong with being optimistic. I don't see anything in the essay putting that down. But it's more along the lines of "practical optimism"--reality-based optimism rather than fantasy-based optimism. The first accepts what is and looks to the possibility of making it better; the latter denies all and is the road toward delusion.

According to Snyder, our society is leading us down that other road. If we continue to subscribe to the idea that the predator is part of the social contract, that our very lives are not worth enough to defend against violence, then we have sealed our fate.

Writes Snyder:

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you desire peace, prepare for war. That maxim lies at the heart of the essay.

And no, it's not saying that we should be paranoiacs with itchy trigger fingers. Quite the contrary.

Note the phrase: "prepare for war." It instructs us to prepare ourselves. That means physical and mental preparation. That means being capable, if and when the time comes, of defending self and loved ones from violent attack. Defending until the attack has been eliminated.

In the words of Sun Tzu: "On death ground, fight."

And yet "enlightened" society tells us such thinking is barbaric.

I suppose to those folks, as Snyder points out, life doesn't count for much.

To be continued...

On "Gun Free Zones," Part Four

A USA Today piece by John R. Lott.

Another student's take on the matter.

On a related note is this story which eems to be an example of knee-jerk backlash from last Monday's tragedy.

Yet there are others--not just Winset--who wonder "Could Seung-Hui have been stopped if someone on campus had been armed?"

Possible Solution

Armed Canadian gives his take on how the Virginia Tech tragedy could have been stopped.

I heartily agree.

On "Gun Free Zones," Part Three

More from John Lott's site.

Commentary: Helmke and Couric, Part One

Here's Brady Bunch president Helmke at it again, this time in an interview with Katie Couric.

When asked about criminals always finding a way to get a gun, Helmke responds:

Gun violence statistics show that if you tighten access to firearms, you get fewer gun deaths and injuries. Making it harder for dangerous people and criminals to get guns make it less likely that they will get them.

Yet the District of Columbia, which prohibited gun ownership until recently, had 893 firearm-related homicides between 1999 and 2004.

Let's look at that again.

"Prohibited gun ownership" means you can't own a gun. That would mean that you've tightened "access to firearms." You've made it harder for folks to get guns. According to Helmke, that would result in "fewer gun deaths and injuries."

But as noted, D.C. had 893 firearm-related homicides.

If gun ownership was prohibited in the Beltway, shouldn't the number of homicides have been lower?

Am I overlooking something?

We'll come back to this.

For those wondering where I got the figure for D.C. firearm-related homicides, I used this report generator from the CDC. I set the Report Options as follows -- "Homicide" as Intent of Injury; "Firearm" as Cause; "District of Columbia" as Census Region/State; 1999 to 2004 as the Years of Report; kept the default settings for Race, Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Output Options; under "Advanced Options," I selected "Year" as my Output Groups and left the other choices as the default settings.

Clueless

Here's an example of a clueless anti-gunner.

I would think that someone who plans to ban something does so with full knowledge of that something. For instance, persons who want to ban pesticides know why they are dangerous and can elaborate on that point when asked.

In this case?

Not a damn clue.


Tip of the hat to Guntards.net.

Well Said

Got this from the NRA yesterday:

The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech, and to all who have been affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends who lost loved ones to this senseless act.

This is a time for people to grieve, to mourn, and to heal. This is not a time for political discussions or public policy debates.

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has declared today a day of mourning; as a Virginia based organization, we respect and abide by this declaration.

We will participate in this discussion at an appropriate time. In the interim, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims, their families, and the entire Virginia Tech community.

Compare this to certain groups whose first response was to ask for money.

Celebs Speak

Ted Nugent chimes in.

So does Fred Thompson (many of you may know him from Law and Order.)

Demented

Virginia governor Tim Kaine had some powerful words during a news conference following the V. Tech tragedy.

Richmond.com's news story reports this:

Asked about the political discussions revolving around gun control in light of the incident, the governor said he had "nothing but loathing" for those who would use the event right now to make a political point.

The Raw Story elaborated further:

"People who wanna take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobbyhorse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them," Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said at a media conference. "This is not a political hobbyhorse or a crusade or something for a campaign or for a fundraising mailing."

Following the incident, the VPC and the Brady Campaign let themselves be heard as we previously noted.

But the Brady Campaign also provided this link on their website, part of which says:

We are building a crescendo of public outcry to ensure that action is taken. We are aggressively rallying support among allies for our solutions. And we need your continued support to make it happen. Please make a contribution now to keep the momentum going. When you do, a generous donor will match your gift.

"Make a contribution"?

This, after 33 young men and women just died?

So basically: "33 people were shot and killed, many more wounded. Please give us money. Signed, the Brady Campaign."

Pretty demented, if you ask me.

On "Gun Free Zones," Part Two

An editorial from a Virginia Tech student...with a license to carry concealed.

I'll let the piece speak for itself.

Surprise Move

A bit of a twist from Nashville.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

Well put, sir.

Fear-Mongering by the Anti-Gunners

Once again, anti-gunners mislead the public.

CBS News.com reported on a debate between Paul Helmke of the Brady Center and Suzanna Hupp, a former Texas state representative and a concealed weapons advocate whose parents were gunned down in the 1991 Killeen, TX shootings.

Helmke demonstrates his ignorance of the very things he and the Brady Center want to ban when he says:

"A semiautomatic weapon, you can get off 25 rounds in under 15 seconds — generally if you know what you're doing. It's just a single finger twitch."

"Single finger twitch" yes--for an automatic weapon. But a semi-automatic weapons means that for each pull of the trigger, the gun fires one round. If you can pull the trigger 25 times in under 15 seconds, you will "get off 25 rounds in under 15 seconds."

But it's not with "a single finger twitch."

Helmke's ignorance--wait. What if he's not ignorant. What if he knows the difference between automatic and semi-automatic fire.

What if he's just playing on public ignorance of the difference and using that ignorance to sow fear.

What a great tactic. Scare people into accepting your ideology by blurring and distorting the facts.

Or ignoring it altogether.

Nice.

Then again, I think they're just ignorant.

Or, at the very least, very deluded.

On "Gun Free Zones"

The first of many posts on this topic.

Let's begin with a series of eye-opening comments on "Gun Free Zones" (from John R. Lott's website.)

Virginia Tech was supposed to be a "Gun Free Zone"...

Virginia Tech: The Response

As expected, the anti-gunners came out regarding yesterday's tragedy at Virginia Tech.

This from the folks at the VPC. And this from the Brady Bunch.

It's interesting (and rather disturbing) to see how each of these big anti-gun groups use events like the Virginia Tech shootings to advance their ideology.

According to the VPC:

These tragedies are the inevitable result of the ease with which the firepower necessary to slaughter dozens of innocents can be obtained. We allow virtually anyone the means to turn almost any venue into a battlefield.

I hope Mr. Sugarmann doesn't mean that "virtually anyone" includes felons because that would be in violation of Title 18, Section 922 of the United States Code which prohibits felons from owning a firearm. Likewise, Title 18.2, Section 308.2 of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Code which says the same.

Of course not. Mr. Sugarmann wouldn't mean that. He just means everyone else, just all of us law-abiding folks. Because when we get guns, we immediately go psychotic and break the law.

And "turn any venue into a battlefield"? Any venue? If I recall correctly, guns aren't premitted on school grounds. Or hospitals. Or government buildings.

"Gun Free Zones," remember?

Then the Brady Campaign tells us:

It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur.

"Common-sense actions." I heartily agree.

But "common-sense actions" for the Brady Bunch, unfortunately, equals "total gun ban."

That's not common-sense. That's nonsense.

And we'll get into more of that in the near-future.

As for groups like VPC and the Brady Campaign using the events at VT as fodder for advancing their platform? Pretty loathsome.

Shame on you.

Tragedy At Virginia Tech

A sad day at Virginia Tech.

But a thought: Aren't schools supposed to be "gun free zones"? If so, why did this individual bring a firearm into a "gun free zone"?

I mean, the law was there. Any law-abiding citzen would've followed it.

Wait--there's the operative word: "law-abiding."

So this individual--the gunman--did not follow the law.

We call those people "criminals," don't we?

(I hope you see where I'm going with this...)

Section V.W of Virginia Tech's University Policies for Student Life states:

Unauthorized possession, storage, or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited, including storing weapons in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls.

The gunman violated University Policy.

(Are ya getting the clue yet?)

What Is This Place?

WHAT IS THE MADMAN RAVES?
Welcome to The Madman Raves. I'm Ace, and I'll be your host.

Here at Madman, we sound off against anti-gunners everywhere. We'll follow news of interest to all pro-gunners and throw in our two cents. In particular, we'll examine the anti-gun camp's arguments for disarming us and point out their "missteps."

Along the way, we'll make little sidetrips into the realms of personal protection and defensive firearm use.

We're glad to have you here so just sit back, relax, put your feet up, and read on. If you have a comment, feel free to drop us a line.


UPDATE 7/6/07: In the new weekly feature "Call To Arms," we'll look at ways to help lift the "stigma" of gun ownership. Tune in for those posts and if you have a comment, drop us a line.

Welcome

Gun control.

The very word gets many people worked up into a tizzy.

I'm adding to that "tizzy."

And before you assume, I will say it now: I am pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment, and all that good stuff.

I am also a "progressive."

You have been warned.

Welcome to the party, folks.