An Interview with Paul Helmke

Fighting For Liberty has the exclusive.

Read on.

Stopping the Nonexistent Gun Show Loophole

Just like herpes, it keeps rearing its ugly head.

"It defies common sense that a loophole in federal law lets unlicensed dealers sell firearms at gun shows without running a background check on the buyer. Our legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America," Lautenberg said in a statement.

Robb and Armed and Safe weigh in on the matter.

Lautenberg seems to be unaware that less than 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Instead, he and the gun control camp demonize the private citizen who decides to sell his or her gun at a show by calling them "unlicensed dealers" and imply that they are selling their guns to criminals and gang members. This, of course, plays into the gun control belief that all guns, and by association gun owners, are bad people.

Yet I have not heard of reports that a crime gun was purchased from a private seller at a gun show. (If you have, please let me know.)

So I say: Why not simply have the private seller complete the sale via an FFL dealer?

I put it to my fellow gunnies. Is there anything wrong with such a requirement?

Yes, I know we shouldn't have to do it. But since dealers must comply with the law and we do the same everytime we purchase a firearm, why not use the system anyway?

Is there a cost associated with having a private sale go through an FFL dealer?

What do you say?

Fighting The Good Fight

Uncle has a nice piece on converting the "non-believers."

I've also posted on this before and while I agree with Uncle that taking an anti shooting can do wonders, there is still the hurdle of "self-image" that we need to get over.

This is a case where what others think does matter. How do we change the public perception of gun owners?

Uncle notes the following method when dealing with the hysterical anti-gunner:

just calmly refute their false claims by stating facts and do so without scaring your average white person with your crazy talk of revolution and the awkward stage. Use self-defense statistics and other things that won’t freak a soccer mom out. You’re not targetig the hysterical anti-gunner, you’re targeting any passers-by who can be reasoned with.

Good advice.

But I'm thinking we need to do more. Maybe it's time we add another tactic. Not simply give up the use of reason, but combine it with additional measures.

The anti-gunners love to use emotional arguments to make their point. Why can't we use it, too?

Yes, yes. Facts and figures and calm reasoning are excellent tactics. But they work well on the rational level. The rational person can understand when you present the facts, when you show the statistics.

PSH is irrational. It's working at the gut level. Emotional appeals and grandiose gestures grab attention and the antis are putting this to good use.

Let's use this tactic to make ourselves heard.

I think it can be done.

What do you think?

Gun Control Continues To Miss The Point

Clayton Cramer makes a nice point:

One of the recurring problems with overbroad gun control laws is that by attempting to make everyone into a criminal, they make it very difficult to focus on those people who are really the problem.

Despite their assertions that they aren't after the law-abiding gun owner, they constantly paint us as criminals simply because of our firearms.

Guilt by association.

Or put another way:

"I see we’re debating a gun bill today. Half of the cast of ‘Deliverance’ is in town." --Virginia Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw

Yet again the anti-gun camp confuses gun control with crime control.

Which makes me wonder: just what is it about crime control they don't want to face?

More British Gun Control

Bitter reports on the following:

BBC Radio Five presenter Shelagh Fogarty today described her terror at having a gun pointed at her face while filming in Liverpool on Saturday night.

The breakfast show host was taking part in a special programme for the ITV1 Tonight programme to find out how safe Britain's streets are, to be aired tonight.

While filming in Norris Green, an area of her home town Liverpool, a car slowed down as it past her, wound down a window and a gun was pointed directly at her.

Har har har, Shelagh! Good one! But really now, you can't fool us. Guns are banned in England so that couldn't have happened.

You cheeky monkey.

Gun Violence Waiting To Happen

A gun and knife show at North Carolina's Craven County Jaycee Fairgrounds this past weekend drew more than 1,600 attendees.

If the gun control goups are correct, easy access to guns leads to violence. Therefore, there should've been at least 1,600 people killed at the show due to the easy availability of guns at that show.

I'm looking for news reports of that massacre.

So far, nothing.

Yet.

I'll keep everyone posted.

Academics For The Second Amendment

To make sure we continue to spread the word.

From their blog:

Academics for the Second Amendment ("A2A") will be filing an amicus brief in the US Supreme Court in support of Mr. Heller (and urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeals decision that the DC gun laws are unconstitutional). Our brief will be written by attorneys David Hardy and Joseph Olson with historical assistance from Clayton Cramer.

[...]

Preparing and filing the amicus brief will take thousands of additional dollars. A2A will be facing attorney fees, printing expenses, filing fees, travel and lodging expenses, etc. We have some money but not enough.

[...]

We need your help. If you believe in full and fair discourse on the Bill of Rights, A2A should receive your support. A2A is open to all. You don’t have to be “academic” in order to join. Your contributions are tax deductible.

Every little bit helps, folks. If you've already donated, good for you. If you haven't, how about tossing in a few bucks?

(h/t: Armed and Safe)

Armed Citizens

When talk comes around to arming the citizenry, gun controllers always bring out the "Wild West" bogeyman. You know the one: "If we let people go armed, it's going to turn into daily shootouts." Along the same lines is the warning that "if everyone is armed, the streets will run with blood."

But in the comments area of an Arizona Daily Star op-ed (sorry, article behind registration wall), one commenter noted:

I know someone with a conceal-carry permit who, when faced with an actual situation warranting response, froze up completely and decided to never carry again.

[...]

Training someone in gun safety is one thing. Making sure they can return fire effectively is another. If you have to point a gun at somebody you better shoot to kill. Most people aren't prepared for that. Most people will freeze up...

The ADS is right about this one - the potential to make a bad situation worse is very high.

So which is it? Armed citizens will shoot everyone else? They'll freeze up at the critical moment? They'll shoot everyone and at the same time freeze up at the critical moment?

Well?

Thank You, Paul Helmke: Part Three

Thank you, Paul Helmke, for showing us that guns are a menace to society and that anyone who owns a gun is also a menace to society.

I have friends I have known for twenty years who are gun owners and I have since told them they are a menace to society. No matter that they are business professionals. They own guns; therefore, according to Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign, they are a threat to our way of life.

One couple especially. They are gun owners with a child. Forget the fact that she's a schoolteacher and he's an IT professional. They own a firearm! And they have a child! That poses a clear and present danger to this youngster's life. As Paul tells us, preventing gun violence is all about protecting the children.

I have since called the police as well as Child Protective Services and discussed the issue with them.

Thank you, Paul Helmke, for setting me straight. I don't mind the fact that my friend punched me out and broke my nose for what I've done nor that they (and the rest of my friends) have since refused contact with me.

I don't mind. I believe in Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign.

On The Gun Show "Loophole"

Fighting for Liberty takes on an op-ed calling for the close of the dreaded gun show "loophole."

Over here is yet another call for the same, but proposes the following:

...there should be a creative solution that protects the public and allows law-abiding citizens to buy and sell guns. For instance, licensed firearm dealers could conduct instant background checks for their unlicensed colleagues or gun show organizers could give unlicensed dealers access to background-checking databases. In the alternative, gun show organizers could limit their shows to licensed dealers.

Interesting.

So: let a non-FFL seller could go over to an FFL dealer's table to complete the sale. Fill out the 4473 and conduct the check.

(To all FFL dealers out there: are there costs involved with running a check that would make it unreasonable to do something like this?)

Seems reasonable enough, right?

But I think what the anti-gun crowd fails to accept is that a person may pass the checks (either at a show or at a dealer) and still go out and commit a crime with that purchased firearm. They cleared the checks (no felonies, no mental illness, etc.), but they went and shot someone. Or robbed a bank.

Same goes for "straw purchases." No amount of background checks will likely catch the man or woman who passes it, purchases a gun, then hands it off to a gang member.

That said, here's a thought: are we now going to demand legislation for checking to see whether someone is related to a convicted felon or someone judged to have a mental illness and bar them for a firearm purchase? Are we now to say that since your Uncle Fred is in jail for armed robbery, you can't buy a firearm because you might just give it to him?

But back to the main point: even mandating that non-FFL dealers submit their buyers to background checks will not solve the problem of criminals getting guns. They will simply find another way to get that gun. More often than not, the source will be illegal.

While the anti-gun crowd claims that closing the "loophole" is a matter of public safety, it really isn't. Even their words betray them:

Lawmakers should close this loophole that could put guns in the wrong hands. The background investigation law should apply to all.

Translation: Guns are bad. People with guns are bad. And people who sell guns probably sell them to bad people.

They're just back to demonizing the law-abiding gun owner.

Violent Anti-Gunners? Surely Not!

Uncle has a great look at the Virginia Tech protest from a few days ago.

Interesting that an anti-gunner got physical with a pro-gunner. It's happened before, of course.

Here's a few examples:

• Barbara Graham, speaker at the “Million Mom March” in 2000, was convicted of shooting and paralyzing for life a man she mistook as one who had killed her son.
• At a rally in Boulder early in 2000, Robert Howell, vice president of the anti-gun Boulder Bell Campaign, attacked Shariar Ghalam, bloodying his nose. (Ghalam was carrying a concealed handgun but never drew it, not believing his life was in danger.)
• In the summer of 2000, supporters of the anti-gun Million Mom March stole supplies from the Second Amendment Sisters and vandalized SAS property

Yet the anti-gunners continue to sell us on the idea that it's gun owners who have itchy trigger fingers, despite evidence to the contrary.

Makes me wonder, particularly in the above example about Howell and Ghalam. If Ghalam showed restraint despite carrying concealed, what's that say about Howell? The implication from the anti-gun camp is: "We're against guns and, therefore, against violence."

Yet Howell attacked Ghalam.

There's a word for that.

Hypocrisy.

(h/t: Uncle, SailorCurt, PGP)

Celebrities and Guns

Found this gem over at Bitter's place:

Remington Arms Company Inc., America's oldest gunmaker now in their 192nd year of United States manufacturing, has just announced a multi-year marketing relationship with NFL quarterback Bret Favre.

[...]

"Learning that Brett was interested in teaming-up with us provided one of those special moments in our company's long history when you know you've got the perfect person on your side, and subsequently a long-list of reasons to get excited," said E. Scott Blackwell, President of Global Sales and Marketing for Remington.

Nice.

Good to see a well-known celebrity doing their part to show that guns aren't bad, despite the Rosie O'Donnells out there.

And the fact that Favre wants to focus on "hunter safety, wildlife conservation and youth programs" says a lot. Kids and guns does not have to equal Columbine.

And Favre for Remington is nearly as awesome as Gunny Ermey for Glock.

(Although I would've figure Gunny as a 1911 type, but that's just me.)

Women and Gun Control: Another View

From an 18-year-old Boston University freshman.

Nicely put, Jessica.

Contrary to what the MSM and the anti-gunners like to tell us, not all women are gun-hating soccer moms.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there, we had a soccer mom who was also a gun owner.

Heller In March

Heller is set for Tuesday March 18.

On British Gun Control (II)

The November 1940 issue of American Rifleman had the following advertisement:

SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME
British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes. The American Committee for Defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns, binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in the defense of British homes. These arms are being shipped, with the consent of the British Government, to Civilian Committee for Protection of Homes, Birmingham, England .... The members of which are Wickham Steed, Edward Hulton, and Lord Davies. You can aid by sending any arms or binoculars you can spare to American Committee for the Defense of British Homes, C. Suydan Cutting, Chairman Room 100, 10 Warren Street, New York, N.Y.

In hindsight, I don't think the Rifleman should've run the ad. After all, the British had already enacted the Firearms Act two decades earlier. If the Nazis did invade, the gun ban would've frightened them into submission.

After all, the gun control groups keep telling us that criminals will obey gun bans.

The Nazis would've obeyed it, too.

More Gun Control Misdirection

In Bryan Miller's entry on declining gun ownership, he makes the following statement:

...hunters and sportsmen are generally not responsible for the unacceptably high rate of gun violence we face in this country, so I have little interest, frankly, in their guns. My concern, and that of Ceasefire NJ, is in keeping guns out of the hands of people everyone agrees should not have them - thugs, drug gangs, felons, violent teens and the emotionally disturbed.

Fair enough. We gun owners also don't want thugs, felons, etc. to have guns.

But then Bryan goes on to say:

So, again, why do I care that the level of American gun ownership is declining? Two reasons...First, it's pretty clear to anyone with even the most meager open mind that the US suffers a uniquely and outrageously high rate of gun violence due to the prevalence of guns.

[...]

I also find the decline in American gun ownership encouraging because it signals a potential diminishment of the noise and power of the gun lobby.

Notice the implication here: the prevalance of guns, other than those for hunting or sportsmanly pursuits, and the power of the gun lobby is responsible for gun violence.

Despite saying that he's not interested in the guns of hunters and sportsmen, he lumps the private citizen gun owner along with those responsible for gun violence (such as gang members, felons, etc.) In essence, he's saying that those who aren't hunters and sportsmen might as well be gang members and felons if they own a gun.

I suppose Bryan also believes that all effeminate men are gay and all women with short hair are lesbians.

Real open-minded there, buddy.

Excellent Idea But...

Armed and Safe posts a rallying cry to support Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode's efforts to save the Second Amendment.

Read the letter (in the link), and use Gun Owners of America's web mail tool to contact your own representative, asking him or her to join Representative Goode's effort to persuade the Bush administration to withdraw the brief.

I'm so completely behind this except for one little problem.

I'm in California. Guess who my representatives are.

Any suggestions?

Carrying Guns Will Stop Violent Crimes

So says the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Yet the gun control groups continue to tell us otherwise.

Afraid to admit the truth about gun control, that it doesn't work? Or do they really have their heads in the sand?

What else do we need to do to get our voices heard?

Gun Control Misdirection

In our earlier post, we noted Thirdpower's report that Bryan apologized for a "factual error" regarding Ceasefire NJ's support of a New Jersey handgun ban.

Which would lead one to, on the surface, think that Ceasefire NJ doesn't support a handgun ban, as Bryan seems to point out. Period. End of story.

Right?

Not quite.

If you look three sentences over in his "apology," Bryan writes:

Ceasefire NJ has signed onto an amicus brief calling for the US Supreme Court to overturn the unusual decision of the US Court of Appeals/DC Circuit...

What does it mean?

It means Ceasefire NJ doesn't currently support a handgun ban in New Jersey but does support the D.C. handgun ban that the Court of Appeals overturned and calls on the Supremes to overturn the Court of Appeals's decision.

Translation: We support the D.C. handgun ban so we want you to put it back into play.

Further translation: We support handgun bans.

Frankly, it's not much of an apology. And not much of a correction of a "factual error" either.

It's just plain misdirection.

Chicks With Guns (V)

Photo of one of the users at Free Republic.

Nice.

Lies, Damned Lies, And The Anti-Gun Camp: Part Two

Thirdpower takes on Bryan Miller's latest.

It's interesting that Miller claims, for example, that the Brady Campaign is not a gun ban group.

Even the Brady Campaign says it's not a "gun ban" group:

Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization? Are you really just trying to make all guns illegal in America?

Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

Yet the Brady Campaign fully supports the D.C. gun ban. How does that not make then a "gun ban" group?

Furthermore, the Brady Campaign was originally called Handgun Control Inc. and its then-president, Pete Shields, had the following to say about gun ownership:

"Our ultimate goal--total control of handguns in the United States--is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to 10 years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition--except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors--totally illegal."

So tell me again: how are gun control groups not "gun ban" groups?

UPDATE: Thirdpower notes that Bryan fessed up to his mistake.

On British Gun Control

If the gun control camp is so adamant in having the U.S. adopt Great Britain's gun control policies as a way to fight gun crime, then why did our country ever go to war with England? Why didn't we just stay a colony?

Why bother becoming a free nation if we were eventually going to adopt British government policies in the future?

Would've saved a lot of lives...

Lies, Damned Lies, And The Anti-Gun Camp

Not lies, per se, but blatant misdirection.

Rustmeister points out the good stuff.

Not bad as a tactic by the antis. Sound reasonable with your argument and when the other side protests, it makes them look unreasonable.

Oddly, when we gun rights folks use this tactic (via op-eds, letters to the editor, etc), we get branded as "gun nuts" and "beer-guzzling, knuckle-draggers."

I ask my fellow gunnies: How else can we reach the public? What other tactics can we use?


(h/t: Uncle)

It's Not The Gun...

Another op-ed on guns and gun violence.

Wernau skirts a line that's close to an outright protest against guns until you get to her closing:

When he was a pre-teen, my older brother started begging for a BB gun. He begged and begged until my parents gave in and bought him one for Christmas. It wasn't long before they caught him aiming the gun at a neighbor's cat. My father put the gun away forever, hiding it where my brother would never find it. Even when my brother hit his 20s, my father wouldn't give it back, and eventually, he threw it away.

It wasn't the gun he was against. It was how my brother chose to use it.

Emphasis mine.

A great illustration of "guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Guns Aren't The Problem, People Are The Problem

So says this op-ed from the Intelligencer:

The problem in this country is not gun control, it's the people. That's right: you. The foundational documents were written with faith in its people. That we were the safest reservoir for absolute power to reside in, and that, if we were not free-thinking enough to exercise that power correctly, the solution was not to take power away, but to educate.

It was this vision the Founders had for our country; education as the true corrective action for the exploitation of the Constitution. They did not envision us as toddlers to be coddled by mommy government with our rights slowly taken from us one by one for our "own good."

And that's what the anti-gunners continue to tell the public. That having the "mommy government" take away our guns is for our own good.

Why not drop the charade and establish a police state? Then there would be no public ownership of guns.

Bitter's Birthday!

Huzzah and happy birthday to Bitter.

One Month Anniversary...

...for Sear and Hammer.

Well done, especially with the Oleg Volk-style posters. Keep up the great work!

Penn and Teller On Gun Control

Found this little gem on WebTVHub:



The duo take on the gun issue with their usual flair.

Great stuff. Have a look.

The Horrors of Plastic Sword and Toy Gun Violence

The English continue to throw common sense out the window.

A Cornish village drama group has had to register a toy gun with the police to comply with health and safety rules.

Carnon Downs drama group in Cornwall have also had to keep their plastic cutlasses and wooden swords locked up for the pantomime, Robinson Crusoe.

I was thinking we could start up a collection to buy them a clue but given the current exchange rate, we might not be able to afford one for them.

UPDATE: And in Merry Old London comes this development:

London's Metropolitan Police began a four-week campaign urging residents to surrender imitation guns after crimes involving firearms rose in the U.K. capital.

[...]

"Imitation weapons cause fear and stress on our streets, and I would urge members of our communities to take this chance to get rid of them,'' said Ian Blair, the London police commissioner, in the statement. "Every gun handed in is one less that can be used for violence and intimidation."

Thank You, Paul Helmke: Part Two

Thank you, Paul Helmke, for showing us that only the police need guns, not civilians. Civilians don't need to protect themselves. That's a job for the police.

I am pleased, Paul, that you have taken it upon yourself to guarantee a police officer for every man, woman, and child in this country so that we can be protected 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

How wonderful that the Brady Campaign is spearheading this project.

Don B. Kates On Guns And The Elections

The following is from the Saturday edition of my local paper.

GUEST COMMENTARY
DON. B. KATES JR. -- From the legal community

IN ELECTION SEASON, MUM'S THE WORD ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 01/19/2008 02:58:19 AM PST

ARE THIS year's U.S. presidential candidates avoiding the gun issue?

Last week, San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeals struck down that city's 2-year-old law that confiscated all handguns and rendered all other guns useless by banning ammunition sales. And on March 9, 2007, a federal court of appeals invalidated District of Columbia laws that banned handguns and precluded keeping any gun for defense in the home.

That case is now before the Supreme Court, which many expect will hold that such laws violate the Constitution's guarantee that law-abiding, responsible adults may have guns to defend their homes and families.

Ironically, though these laws represent the ultimate goals of the gun "control" (actually gun ban) movement, they epitomize that movement's political downfall.

For Democratic candidates, an 11th commandment has evolved: "Don't mention guns" -- while formerly anti-gun Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani now declare themselves faithful advocates of gun rights.

Democratic politicians are well aware that (as Bill Clinton himself says) congressional Democrats' anti-gun efforts caused the 1994 voter revolt which -- for the first time in 50 years -- gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

Democrats regained Congress in 2006 because of the unpopular Iraq war. But generally the Democratic victors either said nothing about guns or openly declared their support for gun rights.

Preceding or accompanying these developments, some 40 states now require that permits to carry concealed handguns be issued to any trained, law-abiding, responsible, adult applicant.

A huge, 25-year study of crime rates credits these laws for the 1990s' vast reduction in violent crime: Criminals, unclear on who is armed, are afraid to attack. Instead they turn to less dangerous crimes, such as burglarizing unoccupied homes.

These conclusions are controversial, though other studies have confirmed them. One thing is beyond doubt: Contrary to what anti-gun advocates predicted, after 5 million carry permits have been issued, violent crime dropped dramatically -- and virtually no gun-related crimes have been committed by ordinary people with carry permits.

This result has produced a sea of change in criminological opinion. As a young criminologist, professor Hans Toch of State University of New York believed that "reducing the availability of the handgun will reduce firearms violence." Thirty years of research later, he repudiated that, "When used for protection firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression."

Likewise, professor David Mustard wrote recently in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: "When I started my research on guns in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms ... . My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. (But research has convinced me that) ... laws that require (gun carry) permits to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths."

Thus, modern criminological research confirms the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who gave us our Constitution's guarantee that all law-abiding, responsible adults may have guns for defense of their homes and families.

As Thomas Paine put it: "The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... . Horrid mischief would ensue were one (good people) deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will be come a prey to the strong."

The issue of national defense is helping fuel the 2008 presidential election season. But individual defense, in certain candidates' campaign speeches, is not only easily overlooked, but judging by political history, its avoidance actually may be in the candidates' best interest.

Kates served as winning co-counsel in the 2008 repeal of the San Francisco handgun ban, and is a Research Fellow with the Oakland-based Independent Institute

Chicks With Guns (IV)

This is Airman First Class Vanessa Dobos.

Yet Another Gun Buyback

My neighbor city of Oakland announced a gun buyback program, according to State Senator Don Perata. (You remember him. Got carjacked not too long ago.)

Interestingly, Perata notes

he doesn't think many criminals will turn in their guns but he said even getting a small number of guns off the street will be a success.

...Perata said, "If we can get one gun off the street, there's less chance that guns will be used" to commit crimes.

Perata has been involved in previous programs aimed at getting guns off the street and conceded that "it feels like we're treading water."

But he said something must be done to make Oakland a safer city.

How about targeting the criminals instead of their tools, Donny boy?

Why does that seem so simple yet be so hard to implement?

Words of Wisdom

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."

"The rifle and handgun are 'equalizers'--the weapons of a democracy. Tanks and bombers represent dictatorship."

--Edward Abbey

In A Gun Free World...

...everything would be flowers and puppies and rainbows.

Or so the anti-gun camp would have you believe.

Here's what happens when predators strike in a "gun free world."

In Rotterdam, where this incident took place, only members of shooting and sporting clubs can get a weapons license. Non-members--likely the majority of the populace--are essentially unarmed.

So when you're attacked, what's your only recourse? Sadly, not a hell of a lot, particularly if you've not even considered what you'd do if you were attacked. Half-hearted attempts at fighting back won't help. Watch the video again and see just how effective the kicks are from the woman's would-be rescuers.

Consider something else: Do you really think the woman, in that instance, would be able to get her cellphone out to call 911? Isn't that what the anti-gun camp tells you to do? Call 911 and let the police handle it?

Do you see any cops--even the barest hint of them--in this video?

Had there been an armed citizen in the crowd, he or she would have ended things quickly. Ask Jeanne Assam.

But this is the kind of world the Brady Campaign, the VPC, and other gun control groups want. A world where you are unarmed and helpless against predators because they say guns are bad.

After seeing this video, can you honestly say that's the world you want to live in?

(h/t: Sear and Hammer)

The Horrors of Dog and Gun Violence

This madness must stop.

Because of the proliferation of high-powered rifles and the easy access to such, more dogs are shooting hunters than ever before. The streets (and duck blinds) now run red with the blood of the innocent.

How much longer before a dog takes a gun to a child and mows them down with high-capacity clips?

I propse we create the Campaign to Prevent Dog and Gun Violence and put a stop to the needless deaths caused by dogs with guns.

Remember: do it for the children!

Those Wacky Anti-Gun Groups...

...always telling us to ban guns then turning around and selling them illegally.

The director of the antigang organization No Guns, which the city of Los Angeles once paid $1.5 million to steer Latino youths away from a life of crime, pleaded guilty Thursday to illegally selling assault weapons to federal undercover officers.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, was sentenced to eight years in prison, said Eric Harmon, the Los Angeles County prosecutor in the case.

Marroquin's accomplice and girlfriend, Sylvia Arellano, 26, pleaded guilty to illegal weapons sales. She is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday to four years in prison, Harmon said.

Gosh, what'll they think of next?

Thank You, Paul Helmke

Thank you, Paul Helmke, for showing us that people don't kill people; guns do. I therefore agree that all guns should be taken away and put in jail where they can do no harm.

Likewise, I agree that all violent criminals previously incarcerated for crimes with a firearm be set free. After all, they didn't kill or harm anyone.

The guns did it.

Thank you, Paul.

Scary and Powerful Firearm...REVEALED!

Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign, Carolyn McCarthy, and Josh Sugarmann and the VPC want to save us from the following horrific firearm:


What manner of diabolical dastardliness of weaponry is this?

What you're looking at is the receiver of a rifle.

Not a firearm you say?

According to the law, it is.

18 USC 921(a)(3)(b) says:

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

Allow Armed Canadian to further enlighten you.

(h/t: Robb and Sebastian/SiH)

Shift In Perception of Gun Violence?

Could it be?

Is it possible that these two stories show a shift in the perception of gun violence?

Both stories report on rising gun violence in San Francisco and in Sacramento. But notice the move from blaming the gun to blaming the person using it.

From the SF Chronicle:

So are there any suggestions? Actually there are, although the solution begins by understanding the motivation of the shooters.

"Since the mid-'80s," says Wintemute, "the illicit drug trade has armed itself with progressively more lethal weapons. If you live in that environment, you'd be foolish not to carry a gun. It's essential business equipment these days."

You might have guessed that. But what you might not know is that a very small number of shooters are causing a large number of the incidents. SFPD's Murphy says at one point his group was able to identify and remove 12 bad actors from a neighborhood and "we didn't have a shooting for seven months."

Wintemute says that approach is a big part of the "Boston Miracle," a gun violence program that dramatically reduced homicides in that city in the '90s.

"They called in the gang leadership," Wintemute said, "and they told them, 'We know who you are, and we know most of you are on probation. If you don't knock it off, you're going to see probation enforcement like you've never seen before.' "

Wintemute says the Boston police concentrated on nailing the slow learners who ignored the warnings, even if it was for jaywalking, to get them out of the area. The results were dramatic. (Unfortunately, Boston's homicide rate has climbed again after funding cuts and staffing problems.)

From the Sacramento Bee:

Sheriff John McGinness said the raw numbers of the past year are signs that law enforcement "needs to be gearing our efforts toward an even younger population." He said the effort is about more than arrests – it's about addressing "behavioral issues."

"Part of our goal is to get them (young people) through that period of life in which they're vulnerable to incredibly bad decision-making," McGinness said. "We need to look at this at a very global level because everyone has a vested interest in the outcome."

Sounds as if someone's gotten a clue. Let's hope this trend continues.

The Horrors of Nail Gun Violence

The madness must stop now.

As you can see in this post, lives are in danger.

Therefore I propose we put together the Campaign to Prevent Nail Gun Violence and work at getting rid of these deadly weapons before the streets run with the blood of the innocent.

Additionally, we can stage an annual Trillion Tool March to make the public aware of the danger. We must prevent the easy access to these deadly items.

Do it for the children!!

UPDATE: Dustin's got more info on this epidemic of biblical proportions.

Timing Is Everything

How do you like that?

The moment Life and the Homefront gets busy and keeps me from the blog for a few days, all the good stuff pops up on the news. The Dem debate. The DOJ/SG on Heller. Poker party raids by SWAT Teams. Toy guns. Plastic genitals.

Go figure...

Light Posting Ahead...

Things are looking busy on the homefront so blogging will be light for a bit.

I'll try and drop in to sound off when time permits.

Welcome To The Nanny State

Gun control groups love to use Great Britain as the example of "gun control done good," to the point of suggesting that the U.S. adopt their policies as the solution to gun violence.

Now Britain wants to ban non-functioning guns and hanging floral baskets.

And you expect us to follow their example? Are we to ban hanging floral baskets, too? How about billboards? We should ban billboards because they might blow over in a strong wind and fall on someone. Telephone poles, too.

And trees. Hell, we need to get rid of trees. If a ferocious storm comes through, those trees'll fall over and kill someone.

Who wants to donate money so we can buy them a reality check?

I still haven't seen any indication that Britain's gun bans have reduced crime.

If there is a gun control advocate out there who can show me cases where a gun ban has reduced--of even eliminated--crime, I ask you to share.

(h/t: Alphecca and Liberty Zone)

SF Gun Ban Revival Refused

The latest from the City by the Bay.

When a gun ban fails, Paul Helmke cries.

(h/t: Unc and Sebastian)

UPDATE: Sebastian has updated with links to the court decision as well as the original Superior Court case.

On The Latest From Helmke

Paulie's latest blog post has prompted the following questions from me. I invite comments from the gun control advocates out there in Blogland.

If the easy availability of guns causes widespread violence and death, why aren't there mass killings at gun shows and gun stores?

If getting rid of private gun ownership really works at stopping crime, why is there still crime in Great Britain? Will ridding our society of guns guarantee ridding our society of crime? In other words, will criminals simply cease to exist when there are no more guns?

If the only ones who need guns are the police because they will protect us from crime, can you guarantee one officer for every man, woman, and child for every hour of every day every year?

Additionally, if the police are duty bound to protect us from crime, why does California Government Code 845 read: "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."?

Congrats...

...to Sebastian and Snowflakes In Hell as they celebrate their one year blog-anniversary.

Dancing In Blood For Gun Legislation

Nicki at The Liberty Zone reports on the VTech families using the death of their relatives to further gun control legislation.

She writes:

While I feel for these people, I have to question the wisdom of dancing in the blood of your loved ones in order to promote a political agenda which will do nothing but create more blood.

This seems to be a favorite tactic of the anti-gun camp.

"My brother/mother/husband/wife/relative was killed by a gun-toting criminal," they say. "Let's ban guns."

Nevermind doing anything about the criminal who actually did the killing.

"It's not them," they'll say. "It was (gasp!) the gun!"

So where does that leave us gun rights folks? We who use reason and facts (the true reasonable discourse) to try and make our point--how do we get ourselves heard above the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Is it time for us to do the same? To dance in blood to get our voices heard?

The Life of Riley

Robb gives us a recap on Ceasefire PA Board Member Alex Riley, aka "Everyone's Favorite Troll."

Gun Control Does Good...NOT!

The anti-gun camps loves to use England as an example of "gun control does good." The idea, of course: gun control equals crime control.

But these two incidents spit in the face of that idea.

The implication from the anti-gun camp: "Once guns are gone, all will be well. We don't really give a damn if people are getting beaten by thugs. That's not our problem."

That's supposed to make society better?

The Latest on Heller

The Volokh Conspiracy has the latest on Heller.

Armed Customer Stops Robbery

Here's what an armed citizen can do.

Contrary to what anti-gunners might tell you, there was no Wild West-style bloodbath.

Kids and Guns

Well, duh.

Interesting that this finding comes from a country with a ban on guns.

Of course, the naysayers disagree. They always do.

Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "The real problem with weapons is that they symbolise aggression.

Says the nanny state.

We've heard that one before, haven't we.

Yet

Research by Penny Holland, academic leader for early childhood at London Metropolitan University...concluded that boys should be allowed to play gun games.

She found boys became dispirited and withdrawn when they are told such play-fighting is wrong.

And they tell us it's all for the good of the children.

I guess they want dispirited and withdrawn children.

2008

Happy New Year, everyone.

Hope it'll be a good year for all.