Windsor, Ontario: "No Way In Hell."

This CNN report about Windsor, Ontario sounds like Brady Bunch paradise:

The paucity of guns is one of three factors police in the city across the river from Detroit cite for its low homicide rate. The 25-year average for homicides is about 5.24 a year.

Especially when you compare it to neighbor Detroit where

homicides occur nearly once a day.

And apparently there's a saying in Windsor:

"In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

Yes. A definite Brady Bunch paradise.

And then there's this little nugget:

And when it comes to gun ownership, Blaine said, Canadians are willing to sacrifice some liberties to feel secure.

Fuck that. Fuuuuck that.

We all know that saying often attributed to Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yeah.

So screw you, Windsor, Ontario.

No way in hell.

LETHAL LOGIC Fail, Part Two

Let's go back to our friend Dennis's book Lethal Logic, which purports to "[explode] the myths that paralyze American gun policy."

We looked at one of his myth-busting facts some time ago.

Let's look at another of those facts.

Dennis writes:

The gun lobby says, "Guns don’t kill people. People kill people." But assaults with guns are twenty-three times more deadly than assaults with other weapons. Guns enable people to kill people – more efficiently and effectively than other weapons.

Did you see it?

Dennis might've misdirected you.

Go back and read the quote again.

The gun lobby says, "Guns don’t kill people. People kill people." But assaults with guns are twenty-three times more deadly than assaults with other weapons. Guns enable people to kill people – more efficiently and effectively than other weapons.

See it this time?

No?

Let me show you.

Guns enable people to kill people

See it now?

Who's doing the killing?

Guns?

No.

People.

People are doing the killing to other people.

Dennis says so himself.

And that "enable" part?

Misleading.

How?

If the mere presence of a gun resulted in a person killing another person, there would be repeated deaths at gun shops across the country.

The bolded bit?

Misleading again.

How?

Sizzle. Not steak. Flashy colors and bright lights. Distracting.

The core of the issue is: people killing people.

Once more.

People.

Not the tools used.

People.

The statement holds.

Dennis doesn't.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Eat, drink, and be merry.

Then slip into a fabulous food coma.

See you back here in a day or two.

(photo: SportsPLAN Studio/flickr)

Gun Control Advocates Like to Fake Agreement

There's no such thing as an "accidental discharge."

And anyone who tells you otherwise is clueless gravely mistaken.

Let's review the 4 Rules of Gun Safety. (Experienced folks will know these by heart. You new folks should take the time to learn and know these backwards and forwards. Also, it's always good to refresh one's memory.)

The 4 Rules:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
4. Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Rule #3 explains why there can be no "accidental discharges."

A gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled.

Yeah, yeah. Sometimes a gun might go off if dropped. But why would a person randomly going around intentionally dropping a gun?

More often than not, a person has the gun in their hand but has failed to follow Rule #3.

So why am I bringing this up?

Because of our friend japete over on Common Gunsense. (You knew it was coming, didn't you?)

In a recent post, she talks about "stupid and dangerous" behavior when it comes to guns. Here's the part that I found interesting.

japete writes:

Sometimes it's true that guns discharge when dropped. I just wrote about that in my post about Plaxico Burress. Often, the comments from the gun rights folks here on this blog assert that guns don't just discharge on their own. They tell me that someone has to pull the trigger. In this case, I guess they are right. This guy surely pulled the trigger here and the jury agreed.

From this, we can infer that japete agrees: Guns don't discharge on their own; the trigger has to be pulled.

But at the end of her post she writes this:

When you think of people walking around with loaded guns in their waistbands for self protection and not thinking the gun could actually discharge accidentally or intentionally, this is what I am talking about.

Right there. Look again

not thinking the gun could actually discharge accidentally

Now why would she use the phrase "discharge accidentally" when earlier she writes

In this case, I guess they are right. This guy surely pulled the trigger here and the jury agreed

Notice she never actually says "I agree."

She says "I guess they are right."

If you're not paying attention, it sounds like she was agreeing.

But she's not. The words "I agree"--or even "I agree they are right"--are never used.

It's fake agreement.

Bait and switch.

This is the truth about gun control.

Gun Control Advocates = Compulsive-Obsessive Neurosis, Says Maslow

Following up on our recent discussion invoking Abraham Maslow...

In his 1943 Psychological Review article, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Maslow wrote this:

The neurosis in which the search for safety takes its dearest form is in the compulsive-obsessive neurosis. Compulsive-obsessives try frantically to order and stabilize the world so that no unmanageable, unexpected or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear; They hedge themselves about with all sorts of ceremonials, rules and formulas so that every possible contingency may be provided for and so that no new contingencies may appear. They are much like the brain injured cases, described by Goldstein, who manage to maintain their equilibrium by avoiding everything unfamiliar and strange and by ordering their restricted world in such a neat, disciplined, orderly fashion that everything in the world can be counted upon. They try to arrange the world so that anything unexpected (dangers) cannot possibly occur. If, through no fault of their own, something unexpected does occur, they go into a panic reaction as if this unexpected occurrence constituted a grave danger.

Doesn't that sorta remind you of certain folks?

Like Dennis Henigan?

Paul Helmke?

Josh Sugarmann?

Sarah Brady?

Our friend japete?

Hmm?

Who Wants To Eliminate Privately Owned Firearms?

An Opposing Vews post takes on the "gun control is racist" argument.

I'm going to leave that issue alone and instead tackle a statement made in that post.

Laird Everitt writes:

Personally, I’m still waiting to find out which gun control organizations in the United States are advocating that we "eliminate all privately owned firearms."

Well, Laird, old son, let me show you.

I wrote about this before and showed that the Brady Campaign heartily supported the D.C. gun ban.

And back when the Brady Campaign was called Handgun Control Inc, then-president Pete Shields said:

"...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."*

Then in March 2000, the VPC released a study which dealt with

the overwhelming role handguns play in gun death and injury in the United States and calls for a national discussion on banning them.

Now if those two examples aren't of gun control organizations advocating the elimination of privately owned firearms, then you are clearly living in an alternate reality.

*from New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53

Don't Shoot Your Rapist; Educate Them Instead

An op-ed over at the Spartanburg Herald-Journal's website advises that education and awareness--and strong words--are the best weapons against rape:

First, we as a community need to step up and tell perpetrators that we won't tolerate their actions. If you see someone harassing, following, assaulting or intimidating a woman, step in and call for help.

Teach the men in your life that no means no and that sexual assault is never acceptable. Hold your friends and acquaintances accountable. Don't ignore behavior that makes you feel uncomfortable. Watch out for one another.

Because, clearly, telling a determined rapist to stop will always make them stop.

As can be shown in every case of rape in which this has happened.

Yeah.

Let me know how that works out for you.

This Week's Gun Control Bestsellers

And now it's time for this week's Top 10 Gun Control Bestsellers as of today, Sunday, 13 November 2011, based on rankings according to Amazon.

At #1:


Followed by:
#2: God, Guns & Rock'N'Roll by Ted Nugent

#3: Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates

#4: God, Guns, & Rock 'N' Roll by Ted Nugent (Hardcover)

#5: Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy by John Lott

#6: Modern Weapons Caching: A Down-To-Earth Approach To Beating The Government Gun Grab by Ragnar Benson

#7: Keeping Your Family Safe: The Responsibilities of Firearm Ownership by Timothy Wheeler MD, E. John Wipfler MD

#8: Samurai Mountie and Cowboy by David Kopel

#9: Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America - Kindle Edition by Adam Winkler

#10: God, Guns & Rock'N'Roll - Kindle Edition by Ted Nugent

Eric Holder's One-Fingered Salute to Border Agent Brian Terry

Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't apologize.

Instead he says this:


(h/t: USA Carry)

Gun Free Zones = Death

Caught this video of Nikki Goeser at 2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog the other day.


Watching it reminded me of Suzanna Hupp's story.


Isn't it eerie how similar they are?

And yet Gun Control Advocates routinely tell us a gun free zone like Luby's and the bar where the Goeser's ran their karaoke show are totally safe from gun violence because those places have a rule that no guns are allowed.

Despite that rule, George Hennard drove his pickup truck into Luby's Cafeteria, drew two handguns, and killed twenty-three people, including Suzanna Hupp's parents.

Despite that rule, Hank Wise brought a gun into Johnny's Sports Bar and shot and killed Ben Goeser.

In both cases, Hupp and Goeser were legally permitted to carry a firearm but due to that one rule, the rule of no guns in those establishments, they couldn't carry it into the restaurant and into the bar and were unarmed when disaster struck.

In both cases, Hennard and Wise defied the rule. And that resulted in death.

But Gun Control Advocates conveniently ignore this. They conveniently ignore that the legislation they want has no effect on criminals--the very people they're trying to stop.

It only affects those who actually follow the new law.

And that's the truth about gun control.

Armed Robbery In England Can't Be Possible

How can this happen?

The 30-year-old father was forced to brake his Toyota Prius when a man stepped out in the road in Harefield Road, Luton, at 20:50 BST on Monday.

Two other men got into the back seat, next to the child, then threatened and hit the man and his wife with what appeared to be handguns.

No no no no.

Not possible. England banned guns. We've been told this.

If that's the case, why did this family get robbed at gunpoint?

Did we miss something?

(h/t: Sean/NC Gun Blog)

Gun Control Advocates Say: You Don't Need A Gun For Personal Security

Both Thirdpower and Patrick at "Where Angels Fear to Tread" highlight our friend japete once again mouthing off on things she clearly doesn't understand and attempting to force her worldview on us.

I find it interesting that she quotes Maslow and the human need for security then tells us that personal security can be maintained by

getting a dog, leaving lights on, locking your doors and windows, making sure kids don't run into the streets, keeping poisons and dangerous substances from kids, installing a home security system, not walking alone on dark streets at night, etc

but a gun isn't needed to maintain personal security. In fact she writes:

I suppose the personal security need could be interpreted by some to mean the need for a gun but you can't find that in Maslow's needs

No. A gun isn't directly indicated in Maslow's list of needs.

But if you read the original 1943 Psychological Review article "A Theory of Human Motivation," Maslow merely notes being safe from

wild animals, extremes of temperature, criminals, assault and murder, tyranny, etc.

Maslow also writes:

There are certain conditions which are immediate prerequisites for the basic need satisfactions. Danger to these is reacted to almost as if it were a direct danger to the basic needs themselves. Such conditions as...freedom to defend one's self...are examples of such preconditions for basic need satisfactions. Thwarting in these freedoms will be reacted to with a threat or emergency response.

Notice what I bolded?

"Freedom to defend one's self," according to Maslow, is a "prerequisite for the basic need satisfactions."

How about that?

Dennis Henigan Says...

How The Hell Can You Be An Armed Californian?

I am a gun owner.

And I live in California.

Yeah, I know. California is notoriously anti-gun and hates anyone who owns one.

But that's what I'm here to do. To try and help change that.

Is it a hard road ahead?

Bet your ass it is.

But I'm willing to fight.

And that means exposing all the gun control lies, half-truths, misdirections. That means taking all the bullshit and shoving it up the collective colons of Gun Control Advocates.

I aim to misbehave.

Welcome, New Readers!

Are you a new reader to the blog? (If you're not a new reader, scroll down toward the bottom of the post)

Did you find yourself here after looking for info on gun rights and gun control?

Then welcome, welcome, welcome.

Read this to find out what this blog is about.

Then start with this post about gun control and its true intent.

After that, feel free to wander through the Archives (see sidebar) for more goodies and discussions.

If you've got questions or comments, leave one below this or another post and I'll answer as many as I can.

Also, click here to subscribe either to the RSS feed or via email to get blog updates hot off the presses--so to speak.

Again--welcome to the blog and enjoy your stay!

* * *

Are you a returning reader? Maybe coming from our old digs at The Madman Raves?

Re-welcome to you! Nice to see you again.

Hope you enjoy the new blog. Read this post to find out why I changed.

And don't forget to subscribe via RSS or email to get blog updates.

Gun Control Advocates Want Your Business To Be Vandalized

When rioters at the Port of Oakland decided to vandalize nearby businesses, Oakland devloper Phil Tagami was ready.

"We had people who attempted to break into our building," the landmark Rotunda Building on Frank Ogawa Plaza outside City Hall, Tagami said Thursday. He grabbed a shotgun that he usually keeps at home, went down to the ground floor and "discouraged them," he said.

"I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it - I didn't point it - I just held it in my hands," Tagami said. "And I just racked it, and they ran."

If Gun Control Advocates had their way, Tagami wouldn't have been able to save his business.

Which just means Gun Control Advocates don't care about your business getting vandalized.

As long as you don't have a gun, it's perfectly allowed.

Ransack away.

And that's the truth about gun control.

Missing Pro-Gun Petitions: Did They Get Yanked?

Matt, over at Freedom Is Mandatory, linked to a post about petitions for signing at the White House web site.

I read the post then jumped to the site to add my signature to each one.

Yeah, I know the original post was back in mid-October, but I figured better late than never, right?

Then I got the following message:
For all four petitions.

Did they really fail to meet the signature threshold?

Or did they get pulled from the site because they're pro-gun?

Seems kinda dodgy to me.

Anyone know what's the what here?

[UPDATE 11/7/11: Turns out the petitions really did fail to hit the target number. And honestly, I find that bothersome.]

New, But Not New

Yes.

We used to be The Madman Raves.

But I decided that name didn't really go with the "guns and gun rights discussion" theme of the blog so I created this one and will continue here.

Excuse the dust and the mess. I'm still getting links and whatnot up and running.

Posts have been moved. I'll try to clean up bad links as I can. If you run across some before I get to them, leave a comment.

Carry on...

School Shootings Are Not Possible

Everyone knows schools are Gun Free Zones.

Therefore this shooting at a North Carolina high school shouldn't have been possible.

A school surveillance camera showed the male suspects carrying the gun inside the school, [Cumberland County Sheriff Earl] Butler told reporters.

...

Butler said he didn't know how the suspects got the gun into the school, which has metal detectors.

Didn't those suspects know they can't bring a gun into a school?

I advise a solution: we need more laws against bringing firearms to schools, because clearly, the ones we have now aren't working.

/sarcasm