Gun Pr0n

My "carry" gun.


A Springfield Ultra-Compact V10.

Gun Removals in Philly

Endless possibilities for abuse.

Philadelphia residents are urged to call the Gun Violence Task Force...to report properties where illegal guns are believed to be kept.

Very nice.

I can see it now...

NEIGHBOR: Psst! My next door neighbor cleans guns in the garage. He probably has illegal guns. Quick! Bring in the gestapo troops!

(Gun Violence Task Force, dressed in black fatigues, body armor, and riot gear, bang on the door of a Gun Owner.)

GUN VIOLENCE TASK FORCE MEMBER: We believe you have illegal guns in here.

GUN OWNER: I don't. They were acquired legally. I have documentation.

GUN VIOLENCE TASK FORCE MEMBER: Quiet, gun-nut swine. Now agree to be searched or we'll arrest you for resisting arrest.

Mighty Blue Justice

Completely off-topic but had to share.

Yes!

Back to our regularly scheduled blog...

(hat tip to Marooned via SayUncle)

Free Training!

Front Sight is offering free training for folks who post the following links on their sites.

I think it's a great training opportunity and I've heard a lot of good things about the facility.

And the Front Sight Challenge is pretty fun to watch.

Here goes:

• Front Sight Firearms Training
  
• Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight
  
• Ignatius Piazza Blog
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury
  
• Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat
  
• Front Sight - on CNN<
• Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer
  
• Front Sight - in Icon Magazine
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram
  
• Front Sight - in Financial Times
  
• Front Sight - on BBC News
  
• Front Sight - in Gun Web
  
• Front Sight - in New York Times
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review
  
• Front Sight - in Sierra Times
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine
  
• Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily
  
• Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo
  
• Front Sight - on USA Today
  
• Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life
  
• Front Sight - in US News & World Report
  
• Front Sight - in London Times
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post
  
• Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal
  
• Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register
  
• Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine
  
• Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio
  
• Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times
  
• Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy
  
• My Experience at Front Sight
  
• Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America
  

(When this post rolls off the page, I'll switch the link list to the sidebar.)

Yet Another One...

(sigh)

More "Ivory Tower" thinking.

In Maine you can buy [a semi-automatic assault rifle or a .50-caliber sniper rifle] through a private sale with no background check, no records kept, no questions.

Translation: "All who deal in private firearm sales are gun traffickers. Those who purchase firearms from a private sale are criminals."

It is not OK to have unrestricted access to firearms. Crime is rising in Maine. Violent crime rose 4.6 percent in 2006, after a 10 percent jump in violent crime in 2005. Armed robberies with guns have doubled in Portland.

Translation: "Maine should ban guns. Gun bans work. Just look at New York City, Washington D.C., and Chicago. They have strict gun bans and they are the most peaceful cities in the world. No crime at all."

What color is the sky in their world...?

Call To Arms: One Way To Do It

I wrote about it back in early May.

Read the post. Then check out the link.

It's a start.

Another Abuse of Power

Very, very unnerving.

What next? Pogroms against gun owners?

When you've finished reading, be sure to hop on over to sign the petition.

Make a ruckus before we hear the sound of jackbooted enforcers at our doors.

Call To Arms

I've written on this matter before. Most recently, I've asked for your input. So far, there have been six responses.

If I seem to be harping on this, it's only because I think it's important.

We pro-gunners seem to either dismiss it (whether intentionally or unintentionally), don't give it much thought, or decide not to get too emotional with it.

Bad move, I say.

It's time to stop the demonization of gun owners.

It's time to take action.

Every Friday, "Call To Arms" will be my spiel on things we might do to change the face of gun ownership from frightening to friendly.

In tomorrow's first installment, we'll look at a simple way to start.

Screwing the Pooch, Part Two

Alphecca and Of Arms and the Law report on this rather disturbing finding:

A former Home Office research expert said that across all types of crime, three million offences a year are excluded from the British Crime Survey (BCS).

The poll caps the number of times a victim can be targeted by an offender at five incidents a year.

If anyone interviewed for the survey says they have been targeted more than five times a year, the sixth incident and beyond are not included in the BCS.

You can only report 5 incidents a year?

WTF?

What, more than 5 is more than the British can accept?

"You were robbed 8 times last year? Oh, bloody hell! My brain--! Does not compute--! Head going to explode--! Bugger this for a bunch of bananas!"

Logic, again, takes a swan-dive out a 30-story window.

Bad England. No Weetabix.

First Timer

Slublog writes about his experience taking a pistol safety course.

Parts One and Two are up. Have a look.

Pretty good reading, I thought. Especially interesting to see things from the perspective of someone without any firearm experience who wants to learn.

Quite a far cry from the rabid anti-gunners who don't even want to approach the issue with an open mind much less a ten-foot pole.

One comment stands out:

Holding a pistol in your hand really makes one realize how much faith the founders had in the American people when they wrote the Second Amendment. It's a pretty humbling thought.

Yeah.

It is.

Gun Control Conspiracy?

Sandy Froman's piece on the history of gun control got me thinking.

She writes:

In the 1960s, gun control came back with a vengeance....after the deaths of JFK, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., an all-out national push for gun control was launched.

If the assassination of a president, a senator, and a civil rights leader spurred such a high demand for legislation, why didn't it happen as early as, say, April 14th 1865.

You know the date, don't you?

Here's a hint: Ford's Theatre.

Bingo.

Why weren't anti-gun laws passed after Lincoln's assassination? Was he less important than JFK or MLK?

What about after the assassinations of Garfield and McKinley?

Why only until 1911 with the Sullivan Act? Or the National Firearms Act of 1934, two decades later?

And why did the "all-out national push" only happen after the deaths of King and the Kennedys?

My "conspiracy theory" alarms are going off, but surely I'm overreacting. Surely, there's a reasonable explanation.

Someone's going to provide that reasonable explanation, yes?

Abuse of Power

ColtCCO writes about a disturbing experience at a Knoxville, TN store.

I hope he sues the ass off that cop.

(hat tip to Front Sight, Press)


[UPDATE: A couple of follow-ups on the situation are now posted.]

Content Advisory Ahead

(hat tip to SayUncle )

I'm What?

Well hells bells!

Guess my fiancee better think twice about marrying me--

Wait a minute!

She's got a smallish collection of swords and daggers and wants us to buy a pair of Paul Chen Practical Katanas.

According to Pat Brown, she must be a psychopath, too!

(hat tip to Alphecca and Snowflakes in Hell)

Not Him Again...

Oh, for the love of...

A day after his arrest for picketing in front of a suburban gun store, Rev. Jesse Jackson said he is more encouraged to fight against gun violence in America.

Jackson said he plans to expand his protests to other suburban gun stores, which he says undermine Chicago's ban on gun sales, and to gun shows across the nation.

Poor Jesse.

While I admire his desire to rid our society of crime, I'm afraid in this instance he's one fry short of a Happy Meal.

His arrest has encouraged him to fight against gun violence in America. So instead of going after the criminals, he's going after gun stores and gun shows--

How's that again?

Lessee...Criminals cause gun violence. Therefore, in order to fight gun violence, go after the gun shops and gun shows.

Hmm.

Logic doesn't seem to work for Jesse.

Better yet, logic seems to have taken a swan dive out a 30-story window.

Dinesh D'Souza put it best:

I think I know why Jesse decided to take on Chuck's Gun Shop. This way he could get arrested--a purely symbolic gesture--and get his name in the newspaper. And why doesn't Jesse use his influence in the black community to bring down the gangs? I know, I know, he might get shot.

The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms

Found this nifty video over at the Guntards forum.




Minor nitpick: I do think the pacing slows waaayy down when he's demonstrating the cosmetic change. A bit of editing might've sped things up without losing meaning or interest.

Otherwise, it's a excellent video and a solid introduction to a popular misconception.

Arms and the Woman, Part Four

Some thoughts on women and guns from PI Laura Lanfield.

A little skimpy on details but she covers some pretty good points.

At the very least, it's a good start toward more detailed education about guns.

Sh*t Disturber

I talked about this in a previous post.

The Million Mom-ers and the "Die-In" Ladies make waves every time they gather.

I believe it's our turn to make waves.

I realize we write letters to the editor and to our representatives. But is that enough? Yes, we may impact the vote on legislation but there are still people who look on gun owners as someone a bit off-kilter.

I think it's time we did more to change that attitude.

How much more? Do we go pushy or subtle? Hand out flyers or stage a rally?

How do we change the perception of "gun owners as closet killers and loonies" to "gun owners as law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend life and family from society's predators by using an equalizing tool"?

I turn to you, Dear Readers, for your take on the matter.

Anyone?

Help A Neighbor, Get Fired

Here's a follow-up to the Bruley story:

An apartment leasing agent fired last week after grabbing his shotgun and running to help a woman who was shot is being praised by talk-show host Neal Boortz, celebrated on Internet blogs, supported by the National Rifle Association and called a hero by a columnist with the Washington Post.

Well done, Colin Bruley. You deserve the praise despite your firing. A fine example of a dutiful citizen.

Your employers, on the other hand, seem to have no concept of civic duty or of caring for your fellow human being. They fired you for taking a shotgun when you went to help your fellow resident.

Better you had gone out there unarmed. If her assailant came back, you could...what? Reason with him? And if he shot you too? Well, too bad, according to your employers.

Here's the statement from George Quay, President-COO of Village Green Companies, owner of Bruley's apartment complex:

"We do not condone residents or associates jeopardizing their safety or the safety of others by intervening in police matters...."

Translation: "Mind your own business."

So if your neighbor happens to be out there bleeding from a gunshot wound?

Can't help them. You'd be intervening in police matters.

Translation again: "Mind your own business."

Now that's a company who really cares.

Jesse In Jail?

Jesse Jackson gets arrested.

Lessee...he's either gonna cry "Conspiracy!" or "Cover up!"

Or both.

I'm all for protests and exercising your First Amendment rights, but this is going a little too far.

Rhetoric vs. Reality, Part Four

(If you need a refresher, jump back to Parts One, Two, and Three)

Let's finish up our examination by looking at the last letter.

Letter Writer #3

read with interest about State Rep. Michael DeBose's terrifying experience. Now he intends to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon for himself and his wife as soon as possible. I worry greatly that this type of reaction is going to lead to nothing but more violence with dire consequences.

Oh, I see. The desire to protect one's self and family leads to dire consequences. Therefore, don't do it. Don't attempt to protect yourself.

Instead, focus on

the problems of illegal gun trafficking and ask the questions, "Where do these guns come from? How have these young men been able to secure weapons to be used against the citizens of our community?"

[....]

I would hope that Rep. DeBose's energy would go toward solving this problem.

Note the shift in the direction of focus.

DeBose has a terrifying experience. DeBose intends to get a CCW permit. The writer worries that this reaction will lead to dire consequences.

Implication: a CCW permit is a bad idea. It leads to dire consequences.

Then comes the shift: Focus on illegal gun trafficking, says Letter Writer #3, with the unspoken suggestion: "Do that instead of getting a permit."

The message: "Forget the fact that you were attacked by gun-wielding thugs. Forget about wanting to protect your family. No. No. No. You've got your priorities all wrong, Mikey Boy. You need to stop illegal gun trafficking first."

Common throughout all three letters is the honest desire to rid our society of its violent predators.

Fine and dandy.

But all three writers suddenly cry "Foul!" when someone actually takes steps to protect themselves from those same predators.

As if to say: "We want the result. But we don't want to actually work toward it. That would mean getting our hands dirty and our hair mussed. Ewww. "

Elitist bullshit, if you ask me.

Gun Crime In Australia?

Recently, from the Land Down Under:

A man dragged a woman from a taxi by the hair and opened fire with a handgun when three people came to her aid on Monday [18 June 2007], killing one person and wounding two in the Australian city of Melbourne, police and witnesses said.

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute!

Australia has strict gun laws. Even a gun buyback program.

According to the anti-gunners when you have stringent gun control laws, there's supposed to be no crime involving handguns. New York City, D.C., and Chicago have strict gun laws. As we all know, they're absolute utopias. No crimes at all!

Australia must be doing something wrong...

Video on Firearms and Personal Safety

An interesting video over at Xavier Thoughts:



It's one of a series of videos from Katey's Firearms Facts, a video blog by a 15-year-old Canadian.

Limited Posting Alert...

Things are a bit busy on the home front so posting will be light to none for the next few days.

Back in a bit...

Sandy Froman on Gun Control

Over at WorldNetDaily, Sandy Froman discusses the history of gun control:

• Part One
  
• Part Two
  
• Part Three
  

Happy Father's Day

Wishing all the dads out there a Happy Father's Day.

Have a great and glorious day!

L. Neil Smith On Politicians and Gun Control

Found this nifty little nugget from SF author L. Neil Smith. Since he grants permission to redistribute, I do so here:

Why Did it Have to be...Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—-or political philosophy—-is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—-even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—-hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—-or political philosophy-—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—-for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—-without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—-toward your ownership and use of weapons—-conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—-or political philosophy—-is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—-but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—-or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—-Prussian, maybe—-and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—-and you're not—-what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—-or the other party—-should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—-health care, international trade—-all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Gun Shows and Crime, Revisited

All that talk from our previous post about straw purchases at gun shows got me thinking.

How exactly does a dealer (at a gun show or gun shop) know when a customer is making a straw purchase? Does the customer volunteer that information? Do they move a certain way? Talk a certain way? Wear certain clothes? Drive a certain make and model of vehicle?

If we know how and when, then dealers would be able to stop the transaction.

I'll bet telepathy is involved...

More on the NICS Bill

Alphecca has some follow-ups on the new bill.

Those who want to read the text can find it at THOMAS.

Keeping an eye on this one.

And no, I'm not paranoid.

Just "concerned" and "alert."

[UPDATE 6/15: Fixed link to bill text]

Not The Bill Of Rights?

A great piece over at Cybercast News Services about the 2nd amendment.

Of note is this bit from Benjamin Wittes, identified in the story as "a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership":

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said.

Wow. I didn't think it was that simple.

I guess those who, f'r instance, don't like and don't want the 21st Amendment can now debate whether we need it and work toward repealing it.

Here I thought it was called the Bill of Rights.

I guess it's really called the Bill of Pick And Choose Your Rights (And Discard The Ones You Don't Want).

Gun Bill Passes House

It begins here.

I'll admit I agree with the intent of the bill.

But as I've said before, I'm still wary of gun control measures getting into the bill through some unforseen back door.

A Proposal

"Guns don't kill people; people do."

But according to the anti-gunners, it should be "People don't kill people; guns do."

Therefore, I propose we ban all firearms, as well as knives, blunt objects, sharp implements other than knives, anything that can be used to strangle someone, and all motor vehicles (did you forget vehicular manslaughter?).

Then (and here's the most important part) we should release everyone imprisoned for murder.

After all, they didn't kill anyone.

The weapon did it.

Double Standard

Anti-gunners and police departments in Texas, Phoenix, Philadelphia, the University of Louisville, Irvine, and Santa Monica (to name a few) all advise the same thing:

When confronted with an armed robber, cooperate. If you cooperate, you won't get hurt.

So what do you say to the following folks:

• Tom Sundawo (hat tip to TFS Magnum)
  
• Tramaine Gibson
  
• two Phoenix, AZ men
  
• Curtis Addison

They cooperated with their robbers.

And they were shot.

Cooperate with your robber. Your life is worth more than your wallet/iPod/jewelry/(insert valuable item here).

Using the same logic: Cooperate with your rapist/sexual assailant. Your life is worth more than...

Than what?

Gun Shows and Crime

Leaves me shaking my head.

I love this bit:

Professor Barry Pless, editor of Injury Prevention, said he felt compelled to include the paper immediately following the deaths of 32 people in a shooting incident at Virginia Tech University in April.

He writes: 'This study represents a small but critical step towards truly effective gun control in a country where the culture of guns verges on the incomprehensible.

'Although there is no evidence that the deranged shooter obtained his guns from a gun show, the implications for prevention seem evident.

Oh. So all it takes is the implied possibility of a crime to be committed?

Hmm. A guy buying a car might commit a hit-and-run. Therefore, we should tighten the laws of buying a car.

I see.

Oh, and here's a nice misleading paragraph:

Gun shows are an important source of weapons for crimes used in the US, Canada and Mexico. In 2005, guns were involved in almost 430,000 violent crimes in the US, including 10,100 homicides.

The first sentence mentions gun shows as a source of crime weapons. The second sentence then quotes statistics of gun involved in crimes. But the second sentence doesn't tell you how many guns that were bought at shows were used in a crime.

From that paragraph alone, you'd think all 430,000 violent crimes involving guns were ones bought at gun shows.

Yet a 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows that 0.7% of offenders bought their guns at a gun show.

Of course, there's no anti-gun bias in that article...

Uh-Oh

Watch it now, folks.

We're gonna start having to license these.

Register them.

Limit purchase to one a month.

Hell, ban them altogether.

Deal with the Devil?

From the Washington Post:

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

Okay. Sounds good.

So far.

Hey, I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of those deemed a danger to self and others.

Here's the bit that worries me:

But [NRA lobbyist Chris W.] Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

You know the anti-gunners are trying to figure out how to get their gun control bits in the bill.

And if they aren't, I'm going to be genuinely surprise.

My other concern is something I've mentioned in three older posts.

An Anti-Gunner's Guns

American Thinker reports on Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson.

Yet another example of "do as I say, not as I do."

One word: hypocrite.

Makes me sick.

Rhetoric vs. Reality, Part Three

Continuing from last time...

Letter Writer #2 notes that Morris

does the right thing. He runs away, makes a lot of noise, and when his neighbors respond with porch lights, the gun-toting assailants leave. No one gets hurt. End of story.

Well doggone it, why don't more people do that? Obviously, this tactic strikes fear into the hearts of armed assailants everywhere. I guess porch lights beat armed assailants every time.

After all, how would you feel if a (gasp!) porch light was shone right at your face?

Me, I'd probably piss my shorts.

The writer goes on to tell us:

Imagine if DeBose had been carrying a weapon. What might have happened? Well, I imagine that someone would have been shot, most likely DeBose.

Butter my butt and call me a biscuit! How could I be so blind?

If DeBose had been armed, he would have been shot. Because, as we all know, when an armed citizen meets up with an armed assailant, the armed citizen will get shot.

Why is that?

Simple. The armed assailant is...well, the armed assailant of course; they will always win over the armed citizen.

How foolish of me.

(At least we know who the anti-gunners are cheering for...)


(to be continued)

Even More Concealed Carry Wisdom

Here's a comment promoted to the front page of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog (#1 on the list)

Yes, I'm aware it's a relatively old post. But I happened across it today and I thought I'd share.

The commenter makes a point I think everyone who owns a gun for self-defense needs to keep in mind:

the decision to carry a weapon in the office or on the street places an enormous responsibility upon the bearer to obtain excellent training, to commit to frequent practice and refresher training, to choose a weapon ideally suited for you and the purpose, and to stare into the mirror and ask yourself if you could really use it - and if you would make its use a truly last resort.

Like the saying goes: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Fighting Tools

Zendo Deb at TSF Magnum presents some handy tools to help in our fight against the anti-gunners.

And yes, I consider this a fight. An ongoing battle .

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

Liberal Gun Ownership

Alphecca reports on an intriguing op-ed piece from UC Santa Barbara's Daily Nexus.

Imagine that: a liberal and a Second Amendment advocate!

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!

The piece's writer says it best here:

Gun ownership is the most liberal thing I can imagine. It’s about keeping power in the hands of the people instead of being exclusively the tools of government and the rich.

[...]

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. It’s an empowerment of the citizenry that, like free speech, must be preserved for the most dire circumstances, lest we find it gone when we most need it. Let’s not define a freedom by its abuse, and let’s not give it up just because we don’t understand it.

We need more folks like that on our side.

At the same time, however, intelligent fact-based argument alone won't be enough.

Remember: the anti-gunners rely on rhetoric, hyperbole, misdirection, and fear-mongering.

Just look at those "die-in" protests.

Ideas, anyone?

Waiting Period

Pro-Gun Progressive is still waiting for a reply from the anti-gun camp...

Rhetoric vs. Reality, Part Two

Five days after Morris' column ran, three letters from Plain Dealer readers weighed in on the DeBose story. Unfortunately, all three letters suffered from the same "Ivory Tower" thinking DeBose previously held before his run-in.

Let's take a closer look at those letters.

Letter Writer #1 makes the following statement:

Morris recounts how liberal Democratic State Rep. Michael DeBose embraced gun ownership after being attacked by gun-wielding thugs. Yet in the same day's "Nation" briefs, we learn that 48 police officers were intentionally gunned down last year.

Note the juxtaposition of DeBose's embracing of gun ownership with the deaths of the police officers. Inherent implication: because you own a gun, you will shoot a police officer.

So let me see if I follow the logic: A person goes through the process of legally buying a gun (they go through background checks and/or waiting periods) then applies for a concealed-carry license (more checks and required training). He/she abides by all laws during the entire process.

After they've followed all laws and regulations and gotten their carry license, they will shoot a police officer.

Wow. I didn't know that's what gun owners did.

I'm a gun owner. When am I supposed to be shooting a police officer?

Or do I need to wait until I get a concealed carry license first?

Then the writer states:

Now, it is my understanding that police officers carry weapons, are highly skilled at using them and would be less hesitant to draw their guns when required than would be average citizens, the latter having basically no real experience or training regarding the use of lethal force.

Then why do the well-known defensive training schools exist? Thunder Ranch. Gunsite Academy. Lethal Force Institute. Yavapai Firearms Academy.

And why do they offer classes to the general public?

Are they just wasting their time?

The writer goes on to lament the availability of guns leading to mass shootings, urban decay, eventually getting to:

Why do we continue to think like survivalists in an allegedly advanced society?

An "allegedly advanced society" that still has predators preying on the innocent and defenseless.

All DeBose wants to do is protect himself and his family from possible future predators.

Letter Writer #1 doesn't believe there are any predators.

The message: "You're silly to think that in our advanced society there are criminal elements."

(to be continued)

The Myth of Police Protection

The anti-gun camp will often say, "You don't need a gun, man. That's what the police are for. They'll protect you."

But as this piece points out, that's far from the truth.

If the two incidents mentioned aren't enough, there's this bit from the California law books:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.*

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it.


* from California Government Code Section 845

The "Gun Buyback" Follies

It still amazes me that the anti-gunners think "buyback" programs actually succeed in stopping crime.

I guess in their world, criminals think "Hey! I could get up to $150 in a giftcard if I turn in my gun. Great Caesar's Ghost! What a deal! Let me tell members of my gang. Then afterwards, we'll volunteer our time at a retirement home. And maybe donate some blood."

Buyback supporters counter that a gun is a gun, whether it's a sleek 9 mm pistol or Grandpa's old muzzle loader.

"What type of gun kills a person? Any gun that fires bullets," said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

If a criminal used a muzzle loader, you'd at least have time to dial 9-1-1.

And maybe get in a word or two to the dispatcher.

Mistaken Identity

An unfortunate incident.

But consider: anti-gunners like to tell us the only people who should have guns are the police because they've undergone training and know when to use a gun.

The implication: the police don't make mistakes when it comes to using a firearm.

um...hello?

This guy was a police officer...

Clueless By The Bay, Part Two

Found this intriguing item at Clayton Cramer's blog.

A little disturbing if you ask me.

Here come the jackbooted enforcers at your door, San Francisco.

And you're probably not going to like it.

Time Out Sunday

On a personal note...

Yesterday, June 3rd, was my birthday, so no blog for the day. Just a nice, quiet day spent relaxing, shopping with birthday money, and watching the first three episodes of the new Doctor Who, Season One.

But the Madman returns.

Hypocrisy In Action

A good example of "do as I say, not as I do."

I find it ironic that he called his organization "No Guns" and got money for his "work."

I guess we know what he did with that $1.5 million. (insert smirk here)


UPDATE 6/4/07: A bit more on this story from the LA Weekly News.

Well done, Los Angeles. I congratulate you for funding a gun runner.

Our Turn Yet?

Looks like another of those "Die-In" deals are going on this Sunday in Virginia.

"We want to continue to drive the public discourse and draw attention to the fact it takes mere minutes to buy a gun in parts of the U.S.," said original organizer and ProtestEasyGun.com founder Abigail Spangler. Adding, "People have a passionate interest in this issue. This protest is a 'Hail Mary Pass' to the American people -- we hope that communities catch this protest and just do it!" Sunday's triple protest will make ten protests in 5 states in 6 weeks with additional protests upcoming.

The planned events will have 32 mothers and concerned others lie on the ground for several minutes to symbolize the 32 victims of the Virginia Tech massacre and the short amount of time it took for the shooter to buy his gun.

Alphecca posted about a similar one that took place back in May in Bethesda, MD.

They're making noise. They're looking to be heard.

The Bethesda protestors got heard via the Washington Post.

What are we doing about it?

Where's our "protest"? Where's our "Lie In"?

Where's our "Gazillion Gunner Gathering"?

Yes, they're using rhetoric. Yes, I know facts and statistics speak volumes over screed.

But consider: this is the rhetoric the anti-gunners use. I hate to say it, Gang, but a good portion of the populace listens to it and often parrots it back to us.

So I ask again: what are we doing about it?

Me? I'm working on that.

And I plan to revisit the issue here in the near future.

Your thoughts?

Off With Their Heads

First it was Jesse Jackson mouthing off. Now it's this priest causing a kerfuffle, and apparently, he wants blood.

NewsBusters observed that NBC5 and ABC7 reports don't mention Pfleger; only the Chicago Tribune notes he was there.

So, why the blackout of the "Father's" outrageous comments?

Could it be because they agree with the efforts at gun control and they don't want Pflager's idiotic rhetoric to tarnish that effort?

Or, perhaps, Pfleger has been a loose cannon for so long that his foolishness doesn't even rate comment anymore?

Interestingly, Cybercast News Service reported:

Vince Clark, a spokesman for Pfleger, told Cybercast News Service Wednesday that the pastor wasn't aware of the violent connotation of "snuff" and didn't mean to threaten bodily harm.

"I've never heard that compared before with the word murder," Clark said. "He [Pfleger] was never aware of that. If that was the case he would never have used that language."

Clark said Pfleger's use of the word "was meaning 'to expose' but to do no bodily harm." He said the backlash from gun rights advocates is "uncalled for, but they're going to take the angle that they desire."

"Never aware?"

Bullsh*t. That tactic is called CYA--Cover Your Ass. Other words come to mind. Backpedalling. Spin. Damage control.

"Never aware?"

Yeah. Right.

Sorry, Padre. I don't buy it.