Andrea Mitchell: A Sheltered Life

A Chris Matthews rant, found over on NewsBusters.org.

The best part is this Ivory Tower soundbite from Andrea Mitchell:

Matthews to Andrea Mitchell: “Are you upset by this Andrea? You must be!”

Mitchell: “Absolutely. You don’t see any women out there with a gun.”

Andrea doesn't get out much, does she.

Lies, Damned Lies, and the Brady Bunch, Part Three

Wormtongue's Paul's at it again, with yet another example of fearmongering, PSH, and blatant misdirection.

Complete with accompanying report.

But, I don't think Paul read the report very thoroughly.

Paul tells us:

Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor.

And he gives a link to the National Institute of Justice's report "Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.04."

Ooooh. An official report. An official report stating (according to Paul) that 7.62mm ammunition can penetrate four categories of police body armor!

Egads! ZOMG!

But let's take a closer look.

If you look at pages 1-3 of the report, you'll find a description of the seven classes, or types, of body armor.

Reading through the descriptions of the classes, you'll see that 7.62mm bullets don't get mentioned until Type III armor. It appears to follow that anything less than Type III armor will not stop 7.62mm ammo. Less than Type III armor are Type IIIA, Type IIA, Type II, and Type I.

That's four classes of armor that won't stop 7.62 ammo.

"Holy crap! Paul was right! Woe to us! Woe to the gun rights camp--!"

Now hold your horses, Sparky. Back up just a bit.

Look at the description of Type III armor. Right next to it you'll notice the word "Rifles" in parentheses.

What Paul fails to tell his faithful subjects: 7.62mm is a rifle caliber.

Look at the description of the four classes below Type III. You'll find that Types I through IIIA stop increasing levels of handgun calibers.

Not rifle.

Furthermore, if you turn to page 9 of the report, under subsection "(k)," you will noticed the following paragraph:

For Type I through Type IIIA armor, a warning in type at least twice the size of the rest of the type on the label, exclusive of the information required in “a” above, stating that the armor is not intended to protect the wearer from rifle fire...

(Emphasis mine.)

So there you have it.

Misdirection, fearmongering, and PSH.

Or more appropriately: Lies.

That's Paul Helmke for ya.

A liar.

"30,000 Die Each Year..."

Robb investigates the claim that "30,000 people die each year from violent firearm deaths" using the CDC's data.

Disarming the Public

Gun control definitely works in Jamaica.

But it's not the utopia the anti-gunners claim it should be.

Yet they still have the audacity to tell us we'd be better off adopting the policies of another country.

Can they share some of that good stuff they're smoking?

Racism and Gun Control

Thirdpower offers a couple of enlightening posts on the racist roots of the modern day gun control movement.

Quite the opposite of what some anti-gunners try to tell you.

Of course, they'll probably tell you it's not true, that it's really about the children.

Yeah.

Uh-huh.

A Heartwarming Holiday Tale

Gives you warm fuzzies, don't it.

(h/t: Zendo Deb)

That Was Then, This Is Now

It's preaching to the choir, but a good read.

Here's the bit that caught my attention:

When 22-year-old Clara Riddles was drug by her hair through CNN Center last April and shot to death, essayist Bob Allen wrote of the incident “There was a time when a majority of American men would almost surely have come to Clara’s aid. It was a day when men, recognizing the reality of evil, carried weapons that enabled them to stand in the gap for those being unjustly tormented and threatened. Virtually any man on the street could come to the aid of a victim like Clara. (But) that was then; this is now.”

Call me old-fashioned. Call me a walking anachronism. I don't care. Aiding the helpless is the true measure of a person. That we've developed into a society which turned a blind eye to Clara Riddles doesn't show progress or evolution.

It shows regression.

There are still predators out there, no matter what the anti-gun camp tells you. They would love for law-abiding citizens to be unarmed. That means easy pickings.

And unless the anti-gunners can guarantee one armed police officer for every citizen, I will continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect my self and my family and prevent us from becoming another crime statistic.

Felons and the 2nd Amendment

Jeff's got a piece on a felon arguing for his right to own a gun.

Sorry, pal. You're a convicted felon. I believe the law prohibits you from owning a firearm.

Dueling Op-Eds, Part Five

One for PSH, the other against, both in response to this op-ed.

Lies, Damned Lies, and the Brady Bunch, Part Two

It's not even misleading. It's an outright lie.

Just like our "friend," Bryan Miller.

(h/t: Fodder)

That Can't Happen There!

As Uncle would say, "That's unpossible!"

England, as I understand it, has a ban on gun ownership.

So how can this be?!?

Oh, the horror!

Merry Christmas to All

Have a great Christmas, everyone!

We'll be back in a few days.

An Open Letter to the Anti-Gun Camp

I understand your desire to end the many deaths caused by gun violence. I, too, would like it to end.

However, I have some questions that maybe you can answer for me, to help me understand where you are coming from when you campaign against those who advocate gun rights.

How will additional laws banning certain types of firearms will end the the violence? How will a new law banning, say, Firearm XYZ prevent a criminal from acquiring Firearm XYZ?

Here's the logic I'm working under. A criminal is someone who commits crime, that is, they break the law. Any law. How will a specific law (in this case, a gun ban) prevent a criminal from breaking said law? Is there, maybe, some study only you and yours are privy to that says criminals will break every law expect one?

We have laws on the books prohibiting murder yet murders continue to happen. Would a stricter law prohibiting murder prevent future murders?

Why do you characterize all gun owners as testosterone-fueled, ignorant, beer-guzzling, knuckle-dragging, redneck men? I know gun owners who are lawyers, businessmen, and IT professionals. Some of them don't even drink. And some of them aren't men. Isn't this like saying all effeminate men are gay?

Why do you continue to imply that the terms "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic" are the same?

Why do you imply that we should advocate the same gun ban laws as countries like England and Japan when, even with a strict ban on firearms, gun violence and violent crimes are still prevalent? And why, for example, would Japan institute harsher gun laws when citizens are already forbidden--by law--to own guns?

Perhaps I have a gap in my line of reasoning when asking these questions. If so, please elaborate on that gap. Perhaps there are legal bits I'm not aware of. Please explain those bits.

I look forward to your replies.

PSH, Bryan Miller-style

According to Bryan Miller's latest entry, the world is ending and we pro-gun types are evil, wicked people.

Read on and see the mayhem! See "the height of ignorance and irresponsibility"!

See the assault pistol!

Yes, one crazed killer with one assault pistol overwhelmed four trained and armed peace officers.

(all together now: ooooooooooo! )

Now check out the comments and see Mr. Miller get his arse handed to him.

Of course, he'll likely argue that the comments are mere "nuttiness" and therefore "Craaaazy!"

Or he'll just call us "poopheads."

PSH...Yet Again

Here's some PSH that uses lots of Brady Bunch talking points.

During the ban, the U.S. Constitution still gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It didn't keep Americans from owning guns for protection or sport.

Except for those nasty, evil assault weapons. Not those. We don't want those.

Frankly, we can't figure out the benefits of having assault weapons easily available. Law enforcement officers universally agree that people wanting self protection don't carry assault weapons. But criminals do.

See? You don't need an assault weapon for protection. If you do, you're a criminal. A criminal, you hear?

'Cuz only criminals need assault weapons...

(Can we buy these people a clue?)

Jeanne Assam: Gun Saint Award

That's a new one.

Kinda cool.

Cooler still if he becomes known as the Patron Saint of Handgunners.

Gun Free Zone in Richmond, CA

One of my local papers has this charming article.

Even more charming is this line:

the City Council said the move will help reduce homicides, remind people of the tougher penalties and help prosecutors build stronger cases against suspects.

I'm sure the bad guys are quaking in their boots now.

(And if you believe that, I've got beachfront property in the Mojave that I wanna sell to you.)

Personally, I think this is just an open invitation to the bad guys.

But I could be wrong.

UPDATE: Article seems to be behind a registration wall. Thanks to Sebastian for pointing this out. Will try to find another source.

Snyder to Wormtongue

John Snyder sent a holiday greeting to Ol' Wormtongue Helmke that featured the following illustration:

Ready and Willing

Robb puts it best.

Reality Check

With the recent spate of shootings, the anti-gun camp will no doubt be up in arms (no pun intended) yet again decrying the failure of our society and calling for (yet again...again) more and better gun laws.

Once again, I have to wonder what reality they live in.

I will agree our society is far from perfect.

But rather than call for more gun laws, why not (altogether now, Kids) enforce the laws already on the books? Why do the antis insist that a stricter law will somehow frighten criminals? Can I have some of what they're smoking?

Could it be that "No More Guns" is easier to chant than "Enforce Exisiting Gun Laws"?

That just means we need a better chant.

Anyone?