A Gun Crime Widow Speaks...

...and she speak for gun rights.

Goeser writes:

Please understand that bad guys don't care about laws. Only law-abiding citizens will honor a "Gun Free Zone" and, therefore, only non-law abiding people will be armed in a "Gun Free Zone." Gun Free Zones are killing zones.

Despite what the anti-gun camp continues to spew to the public, we have people who know the reality of the situation.

People like Nicole Goeser

People like Suzanna Gratia Hupp.

Sotomayor: Bigot on the Bench

Stealth gun control? Or bigotry.

I vote "bigotry."

As usual, the target will be "guns" and never the "criminal."

And gun owners will no doubt take it in the ass.

Bastards...

MORE: The AP reports a push for Sotomayor.

And I find this interesting:

Sotomayor has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Hmmm. Personal feelings overrule the law.

I must be naive.

Squeaky Is Two

Well, her blog is two.



Happy Blogiversary!!

House Approval

WaPo reports on guns in parks.

Anti-gun PSH in 5...4...3....2...

More Campus PSH

Stupid stupid stupid.

What's the color of the sky in their world? 'Cuz it's quite clear they don't live in the real one.

And I love this:

higher education and campus law enforcement officials...feel that guns on campus will NOT make their students, faculty and staff safer.

No, it'll just make them targets for the wackos who do come to campus with a gun bent on doing as much damage as they can.

Virginia Tech? Remember?

The campus did not allow guns yet Cho came in with two and killed people before offing himself.

And you seriously think yet another law (on top of the over 20,000 we already have) is going to stop a determined killer?

And can you share what you're smoking?

Always Remember...

Always always always remember Rule Number One.

A sad outcome, but I have to shake my head at him.

Now THIS Is An Op-Ed

Applause to this piece. From a Kalifornistan newspaper no less.

Well-written. Sensible. Reasonable. Strikes the right tone and balance of rhetoric and logic.

Bravo, Mr. Albrecht.

Stealth Bias Showing

A piece on Dems and gun control.

Notice the photo. To us, no biggie.

To the average Joe and Jane: "ZOMG! They're selling machine guns in gun stores! Oh noes!"

Seven paragraphs into the piece we get a soundbite from our friend Paul:

Asked about the legislation, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, sighed. “I don’t understand why it’s needed,” Helmke said

Notice he "sighed."

And likely rolled his eyes at the matter.

Ammo Stockpiling Now a Crime?

This is a crime--how?

Three words: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Anybody else notice this bit of bigotry?

Garcia is a native of the Dominican Republic who was expected to become a U.S. citizen yesterday, but then he was arrested, authorities said.

So what, right? Wait. Then we get this bit:

The prosecutor said all of the bullets seized from Garcia were for .38-caliber, 9 mm and .22-caliber firearms. Such ammunition is "like gold in the Dominican Republic," he said.

What a crock of shit. And what a bigot.

(h/t: War on Guns)

Presenting--Gun Bloggers!

The CS Monitor covers gun bloggers.

And we get an intriguing quote from our pal Josh Sugarmann of the Bald-Faced Liars Coalition the Violence Policy Center.

According to Josh, we gun bloggers

"clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do."

We do, Josh? Really?

And exactly how much more free time do we have?

'Cuz I'd like me some of that more free time.

As for the article itself, it's quite good. Have a look.

I'm glad someone's noticing.

(h/t: Robb and Sebastian)

Regulate Body Armor?

Ride Fast has the skinny on this and relates a telling story about a bike cop and a fire hydrant.

To answer his question: no, they don't consider the implications.

Then again, the poll's extremely biased. Look how it's set up: it's paired with the article titled "Why Criminals Buy Body Armor." That immediately implies to the average reader that use of body armor is something only criminals do (never mind that police and tactical units also use it).

Once again, Media Bias rears its ugly head.

The bastards...

Guns in Parks! Oh Noes!

Sarah Brady emailed me the other day. (We go way back, y'see. I knew her as "Sarah from the Block.")

Her email advised me that the gun lobby snuck a sneaky amendment to a bill that will allow guns in parks (thus making the baby Jesus cry). It was a matter of safety, she wrote. Gun groups couldn't be allowed to spread their "guns for anyone, anywhere" doctrine so for the price of a cup of coffee, I, too, could adopt a Third World child adopt an anti-gunner donate to continue the fight.

Didja spot the half-truth?

Yep. "Gun groups want guns for anyone, anywhere."

For those reading who might not be hip to what's the what, let me shed some light.

The phrase "guns for anyone, anywhere" assumes that the word "anyone" means just that--any person.

That implies even criminals should have guns.

That's the conclusion Sarah and her anti-gunner friends want you to come to.

So when you put the phrase "gun lobby wants" and "guns for anyone, anywhere" they want you to believe the gun lobby wants guns for all--including criminals.

No.

Felons are already restricted from owning a gun. They don't count. (The fact criminals get guns through illegals means is another topic altogether)

The gun lobby merely wants eligible, law-abiding people to be able to have access to purchase and own guns if they so choose.

Sorry, Sarah, but your half-truths are showing. Might want to cover up. I think that's an arrestable offense in some states.

L.A. Times on Gun Buybacks

The L.A. Times weighs in on gun buyback effectiveness in this interesting editorial.

A dose of reality amid all the hysteria.

What's even more interesting is in the comments--click the link toward the bottom of the editorial to read all the comments and pay attention to comments 10, 9, and 8 (comments are listed in reverse chron order).

Say What, Paul?

"Middle ground?"

Are you kidding me?

You don't have a middle ground.

Friends and neighbors, here's Paul playing the martyr crowd.

What a joke.

Author Follow-Up

As I posted before, I'd been waiting to hear from the author of "My First Gun" (which Brillianter posted about some time ago).

She wrote back and replied that yes, she has gone through training and she has been practicing at the range.

Good for her.

Buyback Media Bias...As Usual

From La-La Land comes this report of yet another "feel good" event from this past weekend.

One of the commentors writes:

Seriously...no one is confiscating or forceing anyone to surrender their gun (or their 2nd amendment right)....this is not some massive government conspiracy.

But Commentor Person, here's how the May 6th article on the event charactertizes it:

It's designed to be a Mother's Day gift of life.

Translation: "If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun, you hate life and you hate your Mother."

The May 8th article on the buyback is titled "Turn in gun and get a gift card" and begins

Gun owners can turn in their weapons Saturday, May 9 — no questions asked — and receive gift cards worth $100 or $200, depending on the type of firearm surrendered.

Call me paranoid, but the line "gun owners can turn in their weapons" has an underlying implication of "gun owners should turn in their weapons."

Another thing--the phrase "no questions asked" (always used in these announcements) implies something secretive, something "naughty" involved in these proceedings. As in "turn in your pornographic magazines, no questions asked--but we'll be thinking 'You're a naughty person for having those smutty book.' "

In a nutshell: demonize law-abiding gun owners.

Dueling Letters

Ran across these three from last week. One for, one against, one in the middle.

The one in the middle, by a Mr. Weeks, tries to strike a balance between the other two but fails. I'll give him points for trying.

See, Weeks tries to explain the concept of "other dangerous people" in paragraphs three and four of his letter. He believes it refers to criminals.

Which is correct.

But Weeks is trying to explain the concept as if the Brady Campaign (and other anti-gun groups and people) believes the same definition.

Here's the tricky bit: they don't believe the same thing.

To the Bradys and their type, a gun owner is the same as a criminal.

So Week's attempt falls sadly flat.

And Mr. Weeks--there are over 20,000 federal and state firearms laws already on the books. You seem to believe that a law, by itself, will stop a criminal. Murder is against the law but it still takes place.

What makes you think one more gun law will deter a criminal?

The Brady Campaign...

Give Us Money and We'll Save You

Yes, I recently started getting emails from the Brady Campaign. Keep your enemies closer, as they say.

This recent one has them crowing about their victory in the national park concealed carry battle. Besides me pointing out the obvious (criminals will still carry illegally in a park no matter what the law says), I find it interesting that the gist of their email is this:

We won the national parks thing. There's still more gun control work to do so give us money to do it.

GOA, Gun Owners of California, and even the NRA usually follow their "we must fight such-and-such anti-gun legislation" rallying cry with a suggestion to write to your lawmaker and/or Congress Critter.

The request for a donation is usually secondary.

Which makes me wonder--I guess if no one funds the Bradys, they can't continue to spread their lies.

Follow-ups, Revisited

An update for those keeping track...

The CDC replied. Their response was a bit confusing so I've asked for clarification.

Still no response from the author of "My First Gun" (see Brillianter's post and my 2 cents). Probably still busy. I'll give it until Monday then send a follow-up.

Recovered

Nasty cold, too.

But I'm at 75% and moving.

So...let's get back to busting chops.

Bleh.

Sick. Have a bad cold.

Back soon.

Gone? Or Hidden Elsewhere...?

Kaveman emailed me about this on Friday and looks like Thirdpower and Uncle have posted about it.

I dug around a bit at White House.gov and when I did a search for "safety" found this link to a Press Office "Fact Sheet" dated March 6, 2009 entitled "FACT SHEET: Investing in Public Safety."

According to the Fact Sheet,

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are making available $2 billion Recovery Act 2009 funding allocations for state and local law enforcement and criminal justice assistance, available through the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.

This funding will be used to help communities keep their neighborhoods safer with more cops, prosecutors, and probation officers; more radios and equipment; more help for crime victims and more crime prevention programs for youth.

JAG Program funds can be used for a variety of efforts such as hiring law enforcement officers; supporting drug and gang task forces; funding crime prevention and domestic violence programs; and supporting courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives.

"Justice information sharing initiatives." Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Here's a couple of examples how the JAG funds can be used:

• In Providence, RI, Police Chief Dean Esserman intends to use the Recovery Act funding for operational overtime, focusing on the violence reduction efforts he has ongoing. His priorities are gun violence reduction and gang violence prevention – and the extra funding to provide for preventive patrol will be so useful.
• The New Jersey State Police is looking to hire crime analysts for its all-crimes all-hazards Fusion Center. This will allow the State Police to keep sworn officers on the street and to develop tactical approaches for fighting gun and drug trafficking, as well as gang violence and terrorism threats. The analysts are the backbone of the Fusion Center and their work supports the troopers, as well as 500 local chiefs and sheriffs.
• Over the past several years, many crime prevention programs in West Haven, Connecticut were eliminated and significantly curtailed or reduced because of budget cuts. As a result of these actions, West Haven, Connecticut saw a steady decline in the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Today, because of the Recovery Act funding, West Haven, Connecticut will be able to re-establish these programs to protect their citizens. West Haven will now be able to establish gang and gun task forces to focus on these and other serious crimes that their neighborhoods are facing. They also will be able to assign additional resource officers to their public schools and provide additional crime prevention and quality of life officers to work with the community.

Emphases mine.

I'm thinking this is where the "crime" policies went to.

Back door banning?

What say you, my fellows?

Following Up on the Follow-Ups

After our little discussion of WISQARS firearms deaths data, I emailed the CDC with some questions about their data.

I've not heard anything back.

That was Monday the 27th.

About the same time, I was working on comparing WISQARS to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports data (post forthcoming) and needed some additional info. I emailed the Statistics Section of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division about the info I was looking.

I got a response the following day--with the info I requested.

Hmm.

The FBI replies, but the CDC does not.

After mentioning Brillianter's post on "gun as talisman," I mentioned I'd email the author of the piece noted in that post and ask how the defensive handgun training was going.

That was Wednesday the 29th.

Nothing yet.

This seems interesting to me since other authors I've emailed have usually responded within a day or two.

Of course, she could be busy so I'll cut her some slack.

But the CDC.

Kinda odd they haven't responded by now...

Snikt Snikt, Bang Bang

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is out today.

In keeping with the theme of this blog, I give you Wolvie...and Frank Castle--The Punisher.

(cover for Punisher #17 by Tim Bradstreet)