Arms and the Woman, Part Three

Former NRA president Sandy Froman, on her journey from no-gunner to pro-gunner.

Screwing The Pooch

Found this interesting story over at Alphecca.

WTF?!

Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy British comedy (Python and the Goons). I like the new Doctor Who. I like the way they talk. I liked the countryside and I enjoyed wandering through parts of London.

But this is...idiotic

Apparently, Reason jumped out the window, Justice shit on herself, and Lunacy is humping everything in sight.

Sorry, England. You may have given us Shakespeare, the Beatles, and Keira Knightley, and for that I salute you.

But for this, you screwed the pooch.

Jesse's Own Little World

The Good Reverend is making noise again.

First, an editorial with arguments that bore no foundation in reality. Now this prattle.

Does he need to talk to Ohio State Rep. Michael DeBose?

Jackson has said in person and in prepared remarks that Chuck's sold the "majority of guns connected with recent shooting deaths in Chicago."

But pressed on his sources, Jackson admitted after the rally that he does not have statistics on the store.

"The police know -- everyone knows -- they get guns from here," he said.

Hmm. Even without hard data, even after admitting he doesn't have the statistics, he's insistent that Chuck's sells illegal guns.

Isn't that called "denial"?

California Dreamin'

Looks like my home state proves itself clueless, despite the recent UC Davis study or the 2006 AFTE Journal report that I talked about in an earlier post.

The measure, AB1471, would require starting in 2010 that all semiautomatic pistols sold in California contain a mechanism to stamp the gun's make, model and serial number on the shell casing of the bullet every time the weapon is fired.

"Sold in California" likely means "guns sold, legally, in a gun store." Obviously, according to Feuer, criminals often get their guns from a gun store despite a 2001 DOJ study which found that 8.3% of offenders bought their gun from a retail store.

8.3%.

Wow. That's a lot of offenders.

Yet the bill's supporters and the anti-gun camp never seem to have heard what the Maryland State Police said about their attempt at a ballistic fingerprinting program:

....The Program simply has not met expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police.

It is recommended that this Program be suspended...

'Nuff said, I think.

A Stabilizing Force

An interesting report out of Missouri.

"When they were debating this, one side was saying it was going to reduce crime and another was saying it was going to cause gunfights in the streets," Franklin County Sheriff Gary Toelke told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "I really haven’t seen either. It’s really a nonissue right now. You’re not having fights in the streets, but it’s not saving the world either."

Of course, the anti-gun camp would probably say "See? This proves having a concealed carry permit doesn't do anything as far as stopping crime. Might as well do without it."

But I think they're missing the point.

Is it possible the concealed carry law might have actually stabilized the situation?

Rhetoric vs. Reality

Some anti-gunners start out skeptical, sitting in their "Ivory Tower," wagging their fingers at us pro-gunners.

Then reality slaps them across the face and they find that the Real World does not play nice.

[Cleveland State Representative Michael] DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

"I was wrong," he said Friday.

"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.

"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent."

How unfortunate it took an event like this to shake DeBose from his previous viewpoint.

Let's hope more people figure it out sooner.


(Hat tip to the NRA-ILA newsletter.)

We're Back

I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day Weekend.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Madman goodness.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend!

We are on break this weekend and will return next Tuesday with more Madman goodness.

Hope everyone has a great and safe weekend!

Commentary: Helmke and Couric, Part Four

In Part Three, we continued our examination of the Helmke-Couric interview.

Let's finish up.

Helmke says:

...those who believe in almost any gun, any time, anywhere, for anybody...

Oh, how the anti-gunners enjoy dealing in distortions.

Such a statement makes you think you can go down to your local supermarket and pick up any firearm the same day.

They so conveniently leave out the bit about background checks and waiting periods.

Now if Helmke added the phrase "from illegal venues" after "anybody," then he would be right. The right amount of cash to the right person at the right back alley, street corner, or trunk of car can get a gun for anybody.

No background checks. No waiting periods.

Inherent here is the implication that those who buy guns are criminals.

Demonization.

And more distortion.

Helmke then tells us all they're doing is

...fighting for common sense gun laws....

and merely supporting

....sensible gun laws which help prevent violence and fight crime while allowing legitimate uses of guns for sporting purposes, collecting, and self-defense.

Yet the Brady Campaign's own Sarah Brady has said:

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights.” *

If that's how she feels about gun owners, it doesn't inspire much confidence in me regarding the fight for common sense gun laws.

And as for gun laws preventing violence and fighting crime?

As we've seen, gun control is not crime control.

If anyone tries to tell you it's the same thing, run away very fast.


* from Gun Facts 4.1 by Guy Smith, 2006, pg. 72, citing Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997

Teddy Roosevelt: Armed Citizen

[Theodore Roosevelt]'s behavior after receiving his honorary LL.D. was so archetypal as to imprint itself on the eyes and ears of many observers. [Harvard president] Dr. Eliot escorted him to a guest suite to change, and watched with fascination as he tore off his coat and vest and slammed a large pistol on the dresser. Eliot asked if it was his habit to carry firearms. "Yes, when I am going into public places." *

* Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex, p.117 (Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2002)

Delusions of Gun Control

Rev. Jackson, you poor, deluded man.

Like your friends in the anti-gun camp, you confuse gun control with crime control. You believe that by banning guns, you will prevent a criminal from acquiring them, that a gun ban will somehow strike fear into the heart of the underworld.

You even go so far as to state:

Metropolitan areas -- where most people live -- have no use...for people packing concealed weapons...

Ah yes. Disarm the law-abiding gun owner. Let them have no way to defend themselves against the predators who lurk in the shadows.

You'll probably tell us that's what the police are for, to protect us from the predators. Simply call 9-1-1 when you are attacked, you'll say.

And our attacker will actually wait for us to get out our cellphone and dial 9-1-1?

Do you really believe that?

(The sad part: They do.)

Buzzwords and Mind Readers

"Loophole" seems to be the new buzzword for the anti-gunners.

While I agree that Cho should have been prohibited from buying firearms, I think we need to be careful of sweeping terminology, particularly with regard to "mental illness."

Then there's this bit:

...after being turned down when applying for a handgun permit in Michigan, Anthony LaCamita bought a shotgun instead. Later, LaCamita took the gun to the office he had been fired from and used it to kill one person and wound two others. Like many other states, Michigan does not require a permit to buy a shotgun.

Warner would have dealers be mind readers?

Levy, Parker, and D.C.

Robert Levy weighs in on what's likely to be next in a Cato Institute piece.

More Concealed Carry Wisdom

There's a belief among the anti-gunners that those with concealed carry permits are folks constantly looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

If so, then why would there be a handgun defense manual that instructs:

If you choose a firearm for personal protection, you have an obligation to perfom to a significantly higher level. Carrying any weapon brings with it a higher legal, moral and ethical standard. The armed citizen must be cognizant of his surroundings; he must be able to anticipate and avoid, if possible, any potentially dangerous situations. If an armed citizen is unable to avoid lethal confrontation, he must be able to devote his entire being to resolving the situation at hand. And, he must possess the self-control necessary to know when and how to use, or how not to use, Deadly Physical Force. *

* Tactical Pistol Shooting by Erik Lawrence, Gun Digest Books, 2005; from a chapter provided by Jeff Cooper.

Losing Their Marbles

Is Bloomberg actually serious? Or is he blowing it out his arse?

Calling a 92-year-old organization with over 325,000 members a "fringe group" is ludicrous. What next? Microsoft is a "nickel and dime" operation?

And right up the same alley comes this Guntards report.

What are Bloomberg and California legislators smoking?

Concealed Carry Wisdom

Here's a piece on concealed carry with some words of wisdom.

"If you are not in a situation where lethal force is appropriate," [Sedgwick County, KS Undersheriff] Hinshaw says. "There's no sense in pulling it because now you've got something in your hand that you're going to have to deal with. And if you use it improperly, there's going to be accountability by the court system, the district attorney's office and the public as a whole."

The anti-gunners try to tell you the opposite, that folks who carry concealed are just looking for an excuse.

They seem to the forget the bit about accountability.

Double-Talk

This op-ed started off on the right foot but quickly went south when the writer notes:

Hate guns? Hardly. Nonetheless, I think about it carefully before I reply.

“I'm not anti-gun,” I finally say. “I'm pro gun-control.”

Huh?

Hmm. Gun control is the ideology of the VPC, the Brady Campaign, and their ilk. According to them, no one should own a firearm except law enforcement and the military.

Anti-gun. "Anti-" meaning "against, opposing" so "anti-gun" would be "against guns." "Opposing guns."

Therefore, Baxter doesn't oppose/isn't against guns. He just believes no one should own a firearm except law enforcement and the military, but that stance isn't opposed to guns.

I smell double-talk.

Carrying On Campus, Part Three

Another one on campus carrying.

This bit was interesting:

USC Security Chief Ernie Ells said theft is a problem on his campus. In his scenario, one of his students carrying a gun has his backpack ripped off. Then Ellis says he'd have a loose gun on campus. He also asked legislators to consider what might happen if a student with a concealed weapon is taken hostage by a bad guy. "If they become the imminent victims of the active shooter here, we then supplied the active shooter with another weapon and more ammunition."

Okay. More idiotic than interesting, actually.

If a student had a CCW-permit and came to campus armed, what in the world would possess him to carrying his firearm in a backpack? Mind you, I don't have a CCW-permit but I would imagine those who do would carry on their person. Strong side OWB, IWB, or cross-draw holster.

None of this "off-body carry" bullsh*t.

As for a CCW-permit holder being taken hostage by a bad guy?

Sure. If the bad guy blindsided him and knocked him out cold.

Chief Ellis seems to imply that CCW-permit holders turn into complete morons during a tactical situation.

Brady Bunch on Parker

Of Arms and the Law reports on the Brady Bunch's "multi-part online" critique of the Parker case.

According to the Brady press release:

The critique, "Second Amendment Fantasy: The D.C. Circuit's Opinion In The Parker Case," exposes the court's opinion as contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent, and rife with distortions and misconstructions of authority.

Nevermind the recent findings of Levinson, Tribe and others. The Brady Bunch seems to dismiss their work, probably as fantasy.

I guess Helmke and Co. consider themselves above such "academic nonsense."

Or they're extremely deluded.

All Guns, All The Time

A pontification on the prevalence of firearms throughout our history.

Regardless of what anyone says, this nation was not forged by firearms and blood - it was formed on ideas. And ideas and ideals are what make great nations.

[....]

THAT'S WHAT our nation has always been about - and that's what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are all about - ideas.

Here's a naive question: if the Declaration of Independence was about ideas and ideas were what forged our nation, why didn't the British just say "This piece of paper you call your 'Declaration of Independence' has fantastic ideas. In that case, we'll turn over the colonies to you lot and head back across the pond."?

Why did we spend 7 years fighting them?

...ideas and ideals are what make great nations.

Germany circa 1933 - 1944 was also about ideas.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble

Fenty and Co. are girding their loins and weighing their options.

The recent denial by the appeals court on a re-hearing must've been a harsh blow.

Will they take it all the way to the High Court for a steel cage match?

If they do, they'll likely face the possibility of a smackdown.

...the belief that the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights has been gaining currency among conservative and liberal legal scholars...

including

...Sanford Levinson, a noted constitutional scholar and liberal-leaning professor at the University of Texas who made news when he wrote that he, too, believed the Second Amendment protected individual rights to bear arms.

Alphecca's got a few insights on the issue, including a bit on R. Levy, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

I'll be watching this one.

Bad Research or Indifference?

Know your subject, says Chuck Klein. Don't be like the author who

when describing a group men in the early 1970s had one of them shooting a Glock pistol. Glock didn’t make handguns until the 1980s.

Note to anti-gunners: if you're going to raise hell about them, at least get the technical stuff right.

Or is that even too difficult?

Then again, getting the facts straight might lessen the impact of the deadly-looking barrel shroud.

A Scholar Schooled

A so-called "Constitutional Scholar" set straight on Xavier Thoughts.

The sad part: there are more like 'em out there....

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid

Armed infant.

Well, not quite yet.

Some kids get a college fund. Others get a CD that matures by the time they turn 21.

This kid gets a 12-gauge.

That's definitely a new one.

No doubt the anti-gunners are up in arms over this.

The way I figure it, if you bring him up to be a decent human being, teach him proper gun safety and handling, he'll do just fine.

Clueless By The Bay

The City by the Bay proves clueless again.

As usual, the anti-gun camp ranks high on rhetoric but low on practicality, and gun control continues to be confused with crime control.

What do you expect from the city that gave us Feinstein?

But, even some of the legislation's co-sponsors conceded the proposals will have little effect on the proliferation of illegal guns on San Francisco streets.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

Of course we know why the move for the measures: Newsom's campaigning for re-election this year.

More Fear Mongering, Part One

Last week the New York Times published a scathing editorial condemning the gun lobby for essentially aiding and abetting terrorists.

Another great example of fear mongering from the anti-gun crowd.

"Where?" you ask. "I didn't see it."

Follow along, Folks, and I will shed some light on the matter.

The tragedy of our runaway gun culture
From this one gets the impression that our country has slipped into armed anarchy with citizens killing each other every day--as reported with hourly "breaking news stories" of yet 100 more killed because concealed carry permit holders shot each other or went berserk because they were armed and shot a busload of nuns.

The surviving citizens (since the majority of the populace has killed each other) of our once great cities must live behind closed--and armored--doors. No one ventures outside anymore because they might get shot.

You want to get some milk for your kids? You're crazy! You might get shot. Just sit at home and watch "American Idol."

Truly responsible lawmakers would put political survival on hold
Therefore, lawmakers who don't put political survival on hold--i.e, who disagree with the anti-gun camp--are irresponsible, heartless, cruel, and (insert favorite epithet here).

As we all know, lawmakers are always responsible when it comes to other issues (the environment, education, immigration, etc) but never on gun control.

After two years of pleas by Senator Lautenberg
This one gives the impression that Senator Lautenberg spent two years pleading (every day) for a ban on gun sales to people on the watch lists because terrorists all over the world were coming to U.S. gun dealers and buying up their entire stock. So much stock that gun manufacturers actually worked special 24/7-shifts to produce the required number of firearms for
said terrorists.

But now--the "after" part of that phrase--somebody said "Hey! Wait a minute! All these terrorists are buying guns in the States! We gotta stop this!"

And thus came the proposal which says the Attorney General has the power to stop people on terrorist watchlists from buying guns. Essentially, anyone who acts suspiciously toward the government (from protestors to the guy who just told you a joke about Bush) will be denied from purchasing a firearm.

Which means Ted Kennedy won't be able to buy a gun. He ended up on a watchlist and got barred from boarding a plane, remember?

(to be continued)

Windbags on Parade

Alphecca reports on idiocy in Bethesda.

His comments pretty much said it all.

My two cents: these are the people we have to deal with. We need to make ourselves heard over their din.

I'm working on that bit...

Fugitive From The Short Bus

(snort)

Could somebody buy this guy a clue?

But all joking aside, let's get serious.

You realize people will want to ban hammers and screwdrivers now. After all, hammers and screwdrivers can shoot--well, whack--bullets. As demonstrated in this incident.

Next thing you know, there will be people whacking bullets at other people, especially when they get upset or are in the vicinity of bullets, and all hell will break loose. Those hammers are deadly weapons, don't you know, made only to kill large numbers of people when used with bullets. Screwdrivers, too.

And don't get me started on those high-capacity steel vises.

Best we nip this one in the bud and put a stop to future bullet whackers.

Lopsided Media

A random news search turned up this piece. As we can see, media bias against guns continues to rear its ugly head.

The blood was barely dry on the floor of Virginia Tech's Norris Hall before advocates on both sides of the gun control debate were spinning the tragedy. Some said it's a clear indication we need to further limit the access to these weapons while others used it as a call to arms, blaming the school's policy banning weapons on campus and claiming that some student or teacher could have prevented the massacre if they had a gun of their own.

From here you'd think the article would show both sides of the debate, giving us, the Reader, a balanced look at the arguments from the two camps. After all, the writer alludes to "advocates on both sides of the gun control debate." Other stories have done so. Surely this one will give yet another perspective.

Let's take a look.

Hmm.

Nine of the article's 13 paragraphs were devoted to the anti-gun side of the debate, including quotes from various spokespersons.

The first and last paragraphs open and close the article, respectively.

That's 12 paragraphs.

We have one paragraph devoted to the pro-gun side. And no quotes from spokespeople.

And there you have both sides of the issue.

Carrying On Campus, Part Two

Another perspective on campus concealed carry.

To those who envision rivers of blood on campus as a result of carrying, Spaulding writes:

CHL holders do not become violent, "Wild West" savages when they come onto campus. Those of us who carry simply want to be able to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities at all times. Yes, campus is relatively safe, but the neighborhoods surrounding OSU and the places where visitors come from may not be.

Society is not made any safer by restricting individuals' right and means to self-defense.

Well said.

Again: si vis pacem, para bellum.


(Hat tip to Buckeye Firearms Association.)

He Said What?

Here's something the anti-gunners probably don't expect: the Dalai Lama advocates the use of force as a response to attack.

"Bullsh*t," you say.

In a recent National Review Online article, David Kopel notes:

According to the Dalai Lama, “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001). Elsewhere, the Dalai Lama said:

if the situation was such that there was only one learned lama or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life, then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it might be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated—if there was no other way. I could justify violence only in this extreme case, to save the last living knowledge of Buddhism itself.

In fact, writes Kopel, the previous Lama left behind a "Political Last Testament" which said:

“In the future, this system [Communism] will certainly be forced either from within or without on this land…If, in such an event, we fail to defend our land, the holy lamas…will be eliminated without a trace of their names remaining;…our political system…will be reduced to an empty name; my officials…will be subjugated like slaves to the enemy; and my people, subjected to fear and miseries, will be unable to endure day or night.”

“.…we should make every effort to safeguard ourselves against this impending disaster. Use peaceful means where they are appropriate; but where they are not appropriate, do not hesitate to resort to more forceful means” (emphasis added).

So does that mean we can kill anyone because the Dalai Lama said it's okay?

If you think that, you'd be missing the point.

Commentary: Helmke and Couric, Part Three

In Part Two, we examined a section of the Helmke-Couric interview.

Let's continue with another section.

Couric asks:

What do you say to those who argue that Virginia Tech had already implemented several gun safety measures on campus-banning guns in classrooms and dorms-that apparently did nothing to help?

Helmke responds with:

Partial restrictions by a university or a city are going to be of limited effectiveness when an individual can go off-campus or out of the city or to the next state and easily acquire these weapons – in this case, not once but twice. We need effective, enforceable, national, common-sense restrictions to prevent such easy, quick access to so much deadly firepower.

Oddly, Couric's question wasn't about access to "deadly firepower." She wanted to know why Virginia Tech's gun safety measures failed in this instance. Helmke sidesteps the question by discussing how one can simply go elsewhere to acquire "these weapons."

Unfortunately, Couric doesn't press the point and Helmke stays silent on the failure of a "gun free zone."

In the following question, Couric demonstrates the media's bias against guns:

A leading Virginia gun rights group said that if one of the victims were carrying a concealed weapon, this massacre might have been averted. What's wrong with that
argument?

By asking "What's wrong with that argument?" Couric instantly implies that carrying a concealed weapon is "wrong" and pretty much answers her own question. What she's basically saying with that question is, "Paul agrees with me. He'll tell you why he agrees. Tell them, Paul."

And he does, starting off his answer with

It’s natural to ask “what if”...

The word choice of this phrase is meant to be sympathetic. As if someone just told you their loved one died and they're asking "Why?" The response, typically: "It's natural to ask 'why' "...

But the underlying tonality is dismissive because it follows from the previous statement "What's wrong with that argument?" and sets up an exception, an unspoken "but..." in the response. Essentially, his answer is subconsciously negating the "natural" reponse of asking "what if."

Translation: "It natural to ask 'what if' but that's wrong. Let's ban guns."

Then Helmke makes a curious statement:

As a former mayor, however, I know that being able to react quickly and effectively without becoming one of the first targets of the shooter is difficult even for trained police officers.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Because Helmke had been a mayor, he knows about the quick reactions of trained police officers. So that means as mayor, Helmke must've trained with police officers in order to ascertain these "quick reaction" skills. Or at the very least, observed them in field--firsthand--during tactical situations.

In doing so, he saw how difficult it is for trained police officers to avoid becoming "one of the first targets of the shooter." Because when faced with a shooter, a good portion of trained police officers will become the first targets despite their training.

Okay, I may be talking out of my arse here but wouldn't shooting back be one way of not becoming a target? Or at the very least, finding substantial cover? Mind you, I'm aware that many police officers are killed in the line of duty but I can't believe that their training wouldn't at least give them a good advantage against a shooter.

But Helmke, as a former mayor, probably knows more about police tactics than I do.

Like I said, I'm probably talking out of my arse.

Laying It Out

Alan Korwin tells it like it is.

....Our arms restrain police and government in a way unknown in Uganda or Cambodia or Russia. We ignorantly take this for granted.

Toppling that balance by disarming ourselves is rolling the dice with your safety and the very fabric of our society. It's a terrible, anti-freedom, unconstitutional policy choice and should be rejected outright.

If America outlaws guns, the "officials" (and outlaws) remain armed, and we will have massively shifted power away from the citizenry. Don't.

Yet the anti-gunners want the public to believe otherwise.

That way leads to the Dark Side, Luke.

Microstamping Messiness

A UC Davis study spills the beans.

Yet anti-gun groups continue to praise microstamping's infallibility. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's Fact Sheet on Microstamping asserts:

....Normal wear and tear and routine maintenance on a firearm will have absolutely no effect on the technology’s ability to mark cartridges.

....Independent examiners have fired thousands of rounds with microstamp-enabled guns and the firearms have continued to produce a consistent and observable mark.

Yet an AFTE Journal report in 2006 notes:

The common layman seems to believe that two bullets fired from the same weaon are identical, down to the very last striation placed on them by the weapon. The trained firearms examiner know how far that is from reality. The layman might also take as gospel that if you could find a way to place a number onto the tip of a firing pin, then you could certainly read it in the impression. Not until this research was performed and many test fires examined from a firing pin that had a known recognizable pattern, did it become apparent how much change could take place, and why matching firing pin impressions can be so challenging. Observing a firing pin mark with four to five overlapping impacts as the result of a single firing was certainly unexpected. After inserting the pin into a number of different firearms and have, in this researcher's opinion, the best made weapon deliver the lowest percentage of readable impressions was also very unexpected. At the same time, the weapon producing the highest percentage of readable impressions was incapable of firing three shots in a row....^*

I seriously doubt the anti-gunners read this study.

They just carry on, banging on the drum of gun control, completely missing the point.

Again.


^* "NanoTag^TM Markings From Another Perspective" by George G. Krivosta, AFTE Journal Volume 38, Number 1, Winter 2006

Fighting "The Man"

Virginia sticks it to New York City.

Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell is warning New York to stop, by the summer, sending private agents into Virginia to look for illegal gun sales, saying that the agents could face legal action. Because of a Virginia law that goes into effect in July, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and his agents could be charged with a felony if they continue to target Virginia gun dealers with undercover sting operations, McDonnell said.

[...]

Convinced that illegal gun sales in Virginia contribute to violent crime in his city, Bloomberg has been arming private investigators with hidden cameras and sending them into Virginia gun stores to try to make illegal buys.

Hmm. Licensed dealer sells firearm to person who is breaking the law by providing false information, passes the required background check, then later hands the firearm to someone who wouldn't have passed the check. Therefore, the dealer is at fault.

um...Somebody mind explaining that one to me? Is the dealer supposed to ask the buyer "Now this isn't gonna be a 'straw' purchase, is it?"

Or are they supposed to read the buyer's mind?

Meanwhile, Bloomberg takes the moral high ground:

Through a spokesman, Bloomberg said McDonnell's efforts to stop New York from sending undercover agents into Virginia to search for illegal gun sales was a "bizarre position for the commonwealth's top law enforcement official to hold."

But Virginia's still not convinced:

McDonnell, meanwhile, repeated his warnings that Bloomberg will violate a new state law if he continues to send undercover agents into Virginia after July 1. He also accused the mayor of the nation's largest city of meddling.

"It is not the job of the mayor of New York to enforce the criminal laws of Virginia," said McDonnell. He later added, "We don't tell Mayor Bloomberg how to enforce the laws of New York."

[...]

Virginia State Police Col. Robert Northern said his agency also has concerns about Bloomberg's tactics. "If we got a problem in Virginia involving guns, we should be involved," Northern said. "If you got a problem, come to us."

Which brings up the question: Why didn't Bloomberg just call up Gov. Kaine and say "We think there's illegal gun sales going on in your state. Why don't we conduct a joint operation?"

Bloomberg trying to be the lone wolf anti-gun crusader?

Commentary: "A Nation of Cowards," Part Two

(continuing from the previous post...)

The essay extols not only the virtues of the right to keep and bear arms, but also our innate duty for personal protection. Says Snyder:

In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly.

Again: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Horrific are the sections in which Snyder discusses gun control. Reading it made the U.S. sound like a totalitarian society. If we profess to be a free country, why do we shackle our rights in such a manner? It's lunacy to uphold only the amendments we like and discard those we don't like. As if to say to the author (Madison, I believe), "We like most of these, but the others suck donkey so you can just stick 'em where the sun don't shine."

Too much "Ivory Tower" thinking, if you ask me. Looks good on paper; crash and burn when applied. Back to Snyder:

Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners...

In the end, gun control is not crime control.

In the end, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

That's not freedom.

What Were They Thinking? -- Part Two

Another juicy tidbit from Pro-Gun Progressive.

To which I say: What the f**k?!?

Don't believe me? Here's what the summary says:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the sexual exploitation of children.

Senate Floor Amendment No. 1
Deletes reference to:
720 ILCS 5/11-9.1

Adds reference to:
720 ILCS 5/24-1.8 new

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

Now what in the name of all that's holy do large capacity magazines have to do with the sexual exploitation of children?

I say again: What the f**k?!?

Illinois has taken leave of its senses and the anti-gunners are showing their true colors.

What Were They Thinking?

Pro-Gun Progressive reports on anti-gun idiocy from Tennessee while Alphecca gives us a followup from the Lone Star State.

Personally, I don't see any practical purpose for publishing a list of CCW-permit holders other than as a political move.

What happened to the right to privacy? Is that suddenly null and void simply because one has a CCW-permit? What's next, make them wear armbands to show they carry? Or perhaps tattoo a mark on their person?

Then what? Send them to "re-education facilities"?

See where I'm going with this?

I'm glad Texas nipped this in the bud. Hopefully, other states follow suit.

Hopefully.

Arms and the Woman, Part Two

Found these great pics at LibertyOutlet.com and A Human Right.com. Thought I'd share some that follow the theme of the previous post.

All photographs by Oleg Volk.

Arms and the Woman

The op-ed I talked about the other day got me thinking.

Now this piece was penned not just by a woman, but by a woman who agrees with the pro-gun camp.

While I would not personally advocate requiring families to own guns, we do need to be aware that it is every person’s duty to protect his or herself. Banning guns deprives American citizens of that ancient right.

Yes, the author doesn't advocate guns for families, but she does recognize the fundamental right of personal defense.

And she's not alone in her views. Suzanna Gratia Hupp and Paxton Quigley are gun advocates. So are the members of the Second Amendment Sisters, Liberty Belles, and Armed Females of America, as well as the fine folks who write for, publish, and read Women & Guns. In the blogosphere, Denise over at The Ten Ring is a gun advocate. And I'm sure there are other women on the Web who share these views.

But look through the news and such women barely register on the media's radar. The closest you get to "women" and "guns" in the same sentence usually includes the word "ban."

Yes, I'm talking about Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, Sarah Brady, and the Million Mom Marchers. Because of them, the typical American considers a woman with a gun an oddity. "Good 'nuff fer that Tomb Raider gal," they say, "but not fer my little ol' Gladys."

And if not an oddity, then as some sort of liability. As author Michael Z. Williamson observed, anti-gunners seem to believe

women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."^*

The media and certain liberal-types sure talk a good game about equality for the sexes. But mention women and guns and they'll look at you as if you just lost your mind, as if you just peed in their coffee. "Women and guns?" they say. "You must be crazy? They don't need guns."

Kinda sexist and hypocritical, if you ask me.


^* from "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control" by Michael Z. Williamson

Kopel on Self Defense

David Kopel's new article "The Human Right of Self Defense" is forthcoming from the BYU Journal of Public Law.


(Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law.)

The New Consensus

The New York Times (who decried the "gun show loophole" in a recent editorial) now reports a pro-gun story.

Imagine that!

The story notes:

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

About damn time.

But, of course, it can't be pro-gun story without the Brady Bunch chiming in:

“The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”

"Overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion?"

According to an article in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution summarizing Second Amendement literature in 1986, of the thirty-six law review articles published since 1980, only four support the anti-gun position, while thirty-two articles support the individual right position...^*

So, the four articles in 1986 constitute an "overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion."

I see. "Four" is as "overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion."

Not thirty-two.

Four.

I suppose it's so overwhelming the 2004 Memorandum for the Attorney General even concluded

that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms.... our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. (p.105)

Yep.

Overwhelming.

At least the change in thought is a step in the right direction. Let's hope the new views catch on to the mainstream.

That'll only happen if we speak up and help spread the findings to the masses.

Before we do that, we'll have to counter the distortions and half-truths of the anti-gun crowd.

A tall order.

But I think we're more than capable.

And from the looks of things, it might've already started.


[UPDATE 5/18/07: The above NYT story has been archived and only a preview is available. The Boston Globe still has an available link.]

^* Wayne LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom, p.13, citing Leonard W. Levy & Dennis J. Mahoney, Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (Riverside, N.J.: Macmillan, 1986)

Still Clueless

Alphecca reports on the likelihood of Parker v. DC heading up to the Supreme Court.

Given the crime statistics for his city, it surprises me that Fenty still holds the erroneous belief that gun control equals crime control.

I hate to ask, but is he really that dense?

Turning the Tide?

Looks like it's not just the usual folks (John Lott, David Kopel, Don Kates, et. al.) starting to speak out against gun control.

Have a look...

• From West Virginia's The Journal comes this op-ed.
  
• From a 16-year-old Milwaukee resident.
  
• The Delware Voice gives us this perspective on the so-called "loophole."
  
• Another one from a teenager who, despite a few things I disagree with, seems to be on the right track.

Just a few when compared to the mass of anti-gun news out there.

But at least it's a start, right?

Rallying Cry

Six words that say so much: "Gun Ownership Is Not A Crime."

Yet many people think otherwise.

Picture this: you're at a party, talking up a storm with some folks, trading witty banter. In the course of the conversation, you make it know that you're a gun owner.

Suddenly--WHAMMO!

You're an instant pariah.

Now people are looking at you as if you didn't have any pants on, as if you were some piece of slime not even worthy to be stuck on their shoe.

Numerous op-eds and letters to the editor perpetuate image of the knuckle-dragging, imbecilic, homicidal gun owner. As if to say: "Anyone who even considers owning a gun has gotta have a screw loose, y'know."

You'd think that the average Joe or Jane, when placed in a room with a gun, instantly turns into a rampaging killer.

And yet I know a number of business professionals who are gun owners and I've yet to see them turn into Charles Manson when they get within sight of a firearm.

Frankly, I'm sick of it.

It's time, Brothers and Sisters of the Gun, to "take back the night."

Getting this sticker is a great start.

Let it be our rallying cry.

(Hat tip to the fine folks at Guntards.net)

Armed Freedom

...there is a statue called "Armed Freedom" in the Capitol, but that is irrelevant to the intent of our ancestors.
-- "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control," Michael Z. Williamson

The statue, which sits atop the Capitol Building, has also been called "the Statue of Freedom" and "Lady Freedom."

SAF vs. Gonzales

Well, hells bells.

So Alberto wants

discretionary authority to deny the purchase of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm license or permit because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good.

Ah. So we're profiling gun owners and, on a vague suspicion of sedition or treason or "Hey, you shouldn't be playing with that stuff so you must be a bad person," we deny a purchase or a license.

That's bullshit.

But as simonov over at Guntards puts it:

Memo to the SAF, the NRA, the GOA, and all the Republican ass-licking gun rights groups: due process disappeared in this country years ago with the War on Drugs, the illegal detention of Jose Padilla (among others) and the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act at the behest of our War Leader. It’s a little late to start getting upset about it.

Okay. So it's a bit late. But it's still a little foreboding.

I know Gonzales missed the concept about gun control vs. crime control despite being our top John Law. But I didn't think he'd be in bed with the anti-gunners.

HR1022, HR297, and now S 1237.

Should I be paranoid now? Should we law-abiding gun owners start looking over our shoulders?

What's next? The sound of jackbooted enforcers outside our door?

Maybe it's a little late to complain. But not complaining makes me think of the Niemoller poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Nonexistent Loophole, Revisited

For additional material on the "Gun Show Loophole" nonsense, have a look at this four-part series of articles by Larry Pratt over at the Gun Owners of America site.

Here are the links:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

Definitely an eye-opener for the skeptical.

Shame on You, Alberto

Dear Attorney General Gonzales,

It seems you miss the point, too.

Since the April 16 shootings that left 33 people dead, including the gunman, at Virginia Tech, some have suggested that the carnage might have been lower if a student or professor with a gun had stepped in.

"I don't think that is the answer quite frankly," said Gonzales, who was participating in a governor's task force to study safety and security on Oklahoma college campuses.

Instead, authorities should enforce existing laws concerning the ownership and use of handguns, he said.

Shame on you, Alberto. For someone who is the head of the DOJ and our country's chief law enforcement officer, I would've thought you'd know better.

Enforcing laws is one thing. But when the target of that enforcement already obeys the law (i.e., gun owners), you're barking up the wrong tree.

Now, if you had said "authorities should combat crime and the criminal use of handguns," I would've nodded in agreement.

But you didn't.

Instead, it was: "blah blah I'm appeasing the gun control crowd blahbitty blah."

Sorry, Alberto. Clear dereliction of duty in my book.

I give you a big "thumbs down."

Sincerely,

The Madman

Exploitation

Found this in my email on Friday.

Sad, when you consider that:

Almost immediately following the horrific shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech, the anti-gun machine was revving into overdrive. Anti-gun politicians and gun control groups were having a field day jostling for an opportunity at any available microphone or in front of any camera.

Some of you might recall my earlier post on this very matter.

It's interesting to note that the anti-gunners went absolutely batshit, vomiting their anti-gun spiel to the media shortly after the events at Virginia Tech.

Meanwhile, the NRA issued only a brief statement on April 16th.

Then nothing further.

Some might argue it was a political move to put a negative spin on the anti-gun camp's reaction.

Maybe. Maybe not.

All the NRA did was offer their condolences.

To me, that speaks volumes.

In A Nutshell

I'll let this one speak for itself.

Silence: Day Two

Silence: Day One

Nonexistent Loophole

Whenever gun control nonsense rears its ugly head, I mouth off.

So let's take a look at some nonsense...

Yesterday's New York Times editorial chimed in about Gov. Kaine's recent executive order.

Says the Times:

The governor’s order...hardly solves the basic problem of supremely porous laws that enable tens of thousands of handgun deaths year after year.

The fact is that Mr. Cho, or any Virginian denied under the mental illness rule, could have easily satisfied his needs by turning to one of the legions of private “collectors” who sell their wares at weekend gun shows without any legal requirement to submit buyers’ names for background checks. It’s that easy and that hypocritical.

Did the Times actually look at the literature regarding gun shows and the apparent "loophole"? Or are they simply parrotting the "talking points" of the anti-gun camp.

David B. Kopel of the Cato Institute and H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis both cite a December 1997 NIJ study which shows only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.^*

Kopel points out in his essay:

Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from...a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its "instant" background check...

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not "engaged in the business."

I guess the Times missed the bit about being "engaged in the business" and is simply parrotting the anti-gunners.

Then they get mean:

The gun lobby, with its generous campaign contributions, operates as a powerful Loopholes “R” Us, and few politicians of either party have the courage to stand up to it.

So essentially, the gun lobby is some sort of middle-man for illegal gun sales. Why don't they just say "The gun lobby helps sell firearms to prohibited parties"?

But, no, they choose to throw out suggestive descriptions like "Loopholes 'R' Us."

As usual, the editorial has to close with a foreboding remark:

The country would be better off if politicians worried less about the gun lobby’s cash and more about Americans’ safety.

And American safety would be in the form of, oh, let's call them "gun free zones"?

Right.

We know how well those work.


^* "About 35 percent of handguns were obtained from the streets, about 23 percent from family or friends, 20 percent from gunstores, and 9 percent from pawnshops. Less than 1 percent reported obtaining handguns from victims or from theft, and less than 2 percent reported obtaining them from a gun show." (p. 99, "Homicides in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy Implications," National Institute of Justice, December 1997)

Requiescat in Pace

Completely missed this.

Therefore, as a sign of respect for those who lost loved ones at Virginia Tech, The Madman Raves will observe two days of silence.

The observation begins tomorrow and concludes Saturday.

Requiescat in pace.

(Tip o' the hat to Liz Strauss at Successful-Blog.)

More on Perry

The Hunstville Item noted reactions to Gov. Perry's proposal.

Brittany Cross, 20, an early childhood development major, said alleviating the restrictions on concealed handguns would simply lead to more being careless with them.

“There will be more incidents like Virginia Tech,” Cross said. “There’s always that percentage of people who don’t have sense. They’ll fight and then pull out their gun because they’ve got a permit.”

So a percentage of CCW-permit holders are rash and unthinking, getting into fights and pulling guns on the other guy. No doubt the recipe for mass carnage between citizens. Rivers of blood in the streets.

Can you tell me where this has happened?

And no, I'm not talking about criminals and gangbangers shooting each other. I'm talking about mass incidences of CCW-permit holders gunning down others.

Brian Marshall, 33 said he supports more lenient regulations.

“The ones that aren’t supposed to be (carrying guns) are doing it, all the bad guys are going to be carrying theirs so you ought to be able to carry yours for protection,” Marshall said. “If (criminals) knew more people had guns to fight back against them they’d be less likely to do anything.”

Ah. A sensible response.

Here's one that isn't so sensible.

Bonnie Dickey, 73, however, said only law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry guns.“I don’t care who they are. People have to train to use those guns.”

And the folks who've taken training? What about them?

Helmke on Perry

The Chicago Tribune reported on Texas Gov. Perry's proposal from the previous day and ends with this bit from --guess who--our friend, Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, said Perry's idea was a recipe for more mayhem, especially because ordinary citizens, unlike police, are not trained to use weapons in the midst of a crisis.

"In a shoot 'em up situation, it's tough for the person to get their gun quickly, to use it properly, to not become the first person the gunman kills, to not be the person the police think is the bad guy when they do respond," Helmke said. "Life is not like the movies."

I see. Just "ordinary citizens" who are "not trained to use weapons in the midst of a crisis." These "ordinary citizens" are the ones, I'm assuming, who have a CCW-permit. And these CCW-permit holders wouldn't want to learn how to use their weapon in the midst of a crisis because--why? What's the reason, Paul? It would be wrong? They shouldn't?

You wouldn't like it?

I guess the folks who paid to take classes from such defensive firearms schools as Lethal Force Institute, Thunder Ranch, American Small Arms Academy and Yavapai Firearms Academy (to name a few) just threw their money down the toilet.

On the Right Track...Sort Of

Baltimore's mayor is on the right track.

Well...at first glance.

But she stumbles when she announced plans to

install a system to track where and when guns had been used in crimes.

“Attacking gun crime,” Ms. Dixon said, “means cracking down on gun sales and arresting, prosecuting and putting in prison criminals who carry and use guns.”

Hold it.

"Track where and when guns had been used in crime."

I may be wrong here, but isn't that what the crime lab of most metropolitan police departments do? So, to install a "system" to do that means you didn't have one in the first place. Which leads me to ask, probably naively: "How long has Baltimore not had a crime lab?"

But wait. There's more.

Ms. Dixon spoke at a news conference where the police displayed 260 guns and rifles that officers had confiscated last month alone. One of the weapons, a 9-millimeter handgun seized from a 21-year-old man, had a particularly violent history.

“Our ballistics lab revealed that that gun was used on April 23 to shoot two men, a 19-year-old and a 20-year-old, and both of them were seriously wounded,” said Frederick H. Bealefeld III, the deputy police commissioner for operations. “And it gets worse. This same gun, through our lab testing, was used on April 6 to shoot a 26-year-old three times in the shoulder.”

Oh. Okay. So they have a ballistics lab, but not a system to track where and when a gun has been used in a crime.

Ballistics lab and a tracking system aren't the same thing. Two totally different animals.

Because a ballistics lab can tell you that a gun used to shoot two men on April 23 was the same gun used on April 6 to shoot another person.

But a tracking system would be able to tell you that a gun used to shoot two men on April 23 was the same gun used on April 6 to shoot another person. And it would tell you where it happened.

I get it now.

Commentary: Helmke and Couric, Part Two

Last time, we took one section of the Helmke-Couric interview and examined what was going on between the lines--literally.

Let's continue our examination.

Earlier in the interview, Couric asks about measures that could've been taken to prevent the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Helmke responds:

A stronger, more extensive system of real background checks might have made a difference. In addition, ballistics microstamping technology might have allowed the police to determine more quickly after the first two killings who the shooter was.

"Real background checks."

As opposed to the fake ones currently in place?

Dunno about you, but it sounds like background checks aren't "real" for Helmke unless he had a say in their creation.

Of course, that's where HR297 comes in, a bill to improve the current system so that people like Cho Seung-Hui won't be able to get their hands on firearms. It's a good, sensible idea...except for the bit that might bode ill for gun-owners.

And then Helmke mentions ballistics microstamping. Ah, ballistics microstamping. His matter-of-fact statement makes you think that it's the ultimate solution to all ballistic forensic problems.

It isn't. Not even close.

Maryland State Police tried out the system and a year later, their Forensic Sciences Division's report found continuing problems including:

the failure of the MD-IBIS [Maryland Integrated Ballistics Identification System] to provide any meaningful hits. There have been no crime investigations that have been enhanced or expedited through the use of MD-IBIS....The Program simply has not met expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police.

Their recommendation?

...that this Program be suspended...

And there you have it.

Helmke also makes this statement:

It’s still unclear whether [Cho's] mental health history legally disqualified him from purchasing weapons.

um...hey, Paul? Have you read U.S. Code Title 18, Section 922(g)(4)?

And did you know Cho was deemed to be "an imminent danger to self or others," a finding certified by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett?

So, yes, Cho's mental health history would have disqualified him.

To say otherwise is just plain stupid.

Or clueless.

To be continued...

Perry for Carry (Concealed)

Alphecca points out this bit of news from the Lone Star State.

Of note:

“The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says 'Don’t bring your weapons in here,' someone who has ill intent on their mind — they could care less," Perry told reporters. “I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they're in church or whether on a college campus or wherever."

Hear! Hear!

Yet another government official who's making sense.

Be sure to check further down the post; Alphecca's also got a nice comment on the article itself.

ABC-affiliate KVUE out of Austin, TX has their take on the story which ends with the following:

For now, bars and other gun-free zones will stay gun-free, but the governor's making clear -- he's shooting for licensed carriers to be free to go anywhere.

"Gun-free zones will stay gun-free."

Well, we've seen what happens in "gun-free zones"....

Guns and Crime

A new report in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy tells us what we already know.

Authors Don Kates and Gary Mauser

look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

Yup.

Need I say it again?

(Tip of the hat to the Second Amendment Foundation.)

Leading the Way

Virginia Gov. Kaine leads the way.

Well done, Governor.