CONFESSIONS OF AN ARMED CALIFORNIAN | Discussing guns, gun rights, and gun control lies

Light Posting Ahead...

2012-02-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

Hey, gang.

Going to be busy for the next few weeks so posts are gonna be light around here.

Back soon!

Gun Control Cultists Always Side With The Lawbreakers

2012-02-13T06:30:00.000-08:00

Here's another one from CSGV's Ordinary People blog.

On November 24, 2010, 28-year-old Thomas Baker of Florida went out for a jog, carrying cash and armed with a handgun. He was assaulted by 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier. Baker responded by drawing his handgun and shooting Mustelier eight times.

Go and read the post, then come back here.

Now, you'll notice the majority of the post gives us a fairly decent narrative of the incident and the resulting judgment.

Here's where it gets interesting.

We're told

The NRA couldn’t be happier with the results, calling its law "common-sense."

Then in the next paragraph we get

The family and friends who loved Carlos Mustelier feel differently

Wait a minute.

Granted Mustelier's family and friends lost him to the shooting, but let's not forget what we were told earlier:

18-year-old Carlos Mustelier and his 16-year-old friend saw Baker as they headed to a Beverage King in the neighborhood. Mustelier told his friend he was going to rob Baker. After leaving the store, which was closed, they saw Baker passing them again. "I'm going to bam him. I'm gonna knock him out," Mustelier announced.

Mustelier planned to rob Thomas Baker.

Then we get

No one should paint Carlos Mustelier as a hero in this incident—-he was wrong to confront and attack Baker that night.

Okay. That's true, given what we've read so far.

But here's where it gets interesting:

On the flip side, Baker is no hero either. It’s hard to pinpoint the definition of "Looking for Trouble," but leaving one’s house after midnight with $950 in cash and a loaded handgun must be close.

See what's going on here? Notice the sly, subtle switch-up?

Let me translate: "Carlos Mustelier was wrong to confront and attack Baker. But if you leave your house after midnight armed and carrying a lot of money? Why, you're a bad guy, you're up to no good, and you're planning to randomly kill someone. (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)"

Notice how they conveniently forget that Mustelier attacked Baker with the intention to robbing him.

According to CSGV, we should be on Mustelier's side because he was shot with a gun.

In other words, we should be on the side of someone intent on breaking the law.

To that I say: No.

Uh-uh.

Fuck that.

Gun Control Cultists Say: The Second Amendment Is Obsolete

2012-02-06T08:00:00.000-08:00

Gun Control Cultists like to repeatedly point this out to anyone and everyone.

"The Second Amendments has no place in today's society," they say. "It's a product of a bygone era and means nothing in the modern world. It refers only to muskets and other old-style weapons. The Founders could not have forseen the development of semi-automatic pistols and their like. It's obsolete. Therefore we must repeal it."

The Founders also could not have forseen the development of television, movies, and the Internet.

Yet we still apply freedom of speech and freedom of the press from the First Amendment to those inventions.

But in the era of the Founders, press and speech was limited to voice, hand-written literature, and anything made by the printing press.

Nothing at all remotely like CNN, Google, or the latest Steven Spielberg flick.

Therefore we should prohibit the use of First Amendment freedoms to television, movies, and the Internet.

(photo: kjd/flickr)

Josh Sugarmann Wants You To Be Raped

2012-01-30T08:00:00.001-08:00

In the chapter "Handguns and Women" in Every Handgun is Aimed at You, VPCs Josh Sugarmann writes about a 1985 ad from the Second Amendment Foundation depicting

a beaten woman, eye blackened and lip swelling, wrapped in a bathrobe. "Last night I was raped...Where were the police?" she asks.*

He further quotes from the ad:

The days when you tought you'd never be the victim of a rape--that it "can't happen to me"--are over....You might be the next victim.

Then Josh writes:

Contrary to these images, rape primarily happens between people who know each other. The National Victim Center's 1992 study, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, revealed that only 22 percent of rape victims were assaulted by someone they had never seen before or did not know well. Furthermore, the majority of rapes occur during childhood and adolescence. More than six out of every 10 rapes occur to children and adolescents under the age of 18. Recognizing that under the Gun Control Act of 1968, persons must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a long gun and 21 years of age to buy a handgun, the gun lobby's arguments ring particularly hollow.

Disturbing.

Read it again.

The implication behind those words is this: "Rape happens. Deal with it. Furthermore, it's okay--even morally superior--to be raped. Just as long as you don't have a gun."

*from Every Handgun is Aimed at You, New Press, 2001, p.90 (hardcover edition)

San Francisco-based Gun Control Cultists

2012-01-29T07:00:00.000-08:00

The Legal Community Against Violence was formed in response to the 1993 shootings at 101 California Street in San Francisco, when a gunman entered a law firm and shot 14 people.

Yup. Another Gun Control Cultist site.

And the fun part? They're in our neck of the woods.

San Francisco.

As we're doing with Brady, VPC, and CSGV, we'll be taking a look at their various reports to uncover blatant misinformation, half-truths, bigotry, and general policy sleight-of-hand.

Keep an eye out for upcoming posts!

Defending Against Home Invasion

2012-01-27T06:30:00.000-08:00

Here's one way to do it:

Video on Gun Control

2012-01-25T06:30:00.000-08:00

Found this neat little video the other day. Enjoy!

Gun Control's Conflicting Information

2012-01-24T06:30:00.000-08:00

Here's VPC's Josh Sugarmann's recent HuffPo post talking about a new study they just released (PDF) which looks at California's youth homicide victimization rates.

The study concludes that "homicide, and particularly gun homicide, continues to be one of the most pressing public health concerns in California among youth and young adults ages 10 to 24" and states that "effective violence prevention strategies must include measures that prioritize preventing youth and young adults from accessing firearms, especially handguns."

Wait wait wait wait!!!

Hold the phone!

According to the Brady Campaign, California scored the highest in their Gun Law Scorecards and is

a model of sensible gun laws. Its universal background check system, strong gun dealer regulations, and assault clip ban are just some of the laws that provide a road map to preventing gun violence.

Which should mean there can't be any homicides in California.

I mean, sensible gun laws and such should render homicide figures nonexistent because such laws would keep criminals from committing crimes.

Right, Josh?

Right?

You wanna explain the discrepancy?

Shouldn't you two groups be on the same page on this?

Josh? Dennis?

We're waiting...

Knuckle-Dragging Rednecks...In India?!?

2012-01-23T06:30:00.000-08:00

Ran across this piece by David Codrea on a recent leopard attack in India.

David then links to Abhijeet Singh, one of the "modern voices...recognizing the intolerable debasement a monopoly of violence always produces, and...speaking out."

Singh writes:

I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

Read what Singh has to say.

So, Gun Control Cultists: is Singh also knuckle-dragging redneck like all of us gun owners?

Are you now racists as well as bigots?

Media Matters Misses Lott's Point

2012-01-22T06:30:00.000-08:00

Media Matters's Chris Brown fisks John Lott's recent FoxNews.com op-ed piece.

Says Brown:

Not surprisingly Lott again uses distorted anecdotes to support the gun lobby favored National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act. In fact, the same examples Lott cites to suggest gun laws are unreasonably punitive and inflexible actually show that even in states where gun charges can lead to stiff penalties, prosecutors have used discretion to avoid excessive punishments.

Unfortunately, Brown completely misses the point.

Lott is saying Graves and Meckler shouldn't have had to deal with the prohibitions of carrying in the first place.

Period.

Gun Control Cultists Conveniently Forget Details

2012-01-21T06:30:00.001-08:00

Over at the CSGV website is the blog "Ordinary People" which

examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders in particular—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country.

And as an example of such an examination, they give us a post on Michigan's Shall Issue law and write

Ten years after Michigan made it easier for residents to obtain concealed handgun permits, an investigation by the Center for Statistical Consultation and Research (CSCAR) has revealed numerous problems regarding the implementation of the law. Of particular concern is the inconsistent manner in which permit applicants and permit holders are screened for public safety.

They also tell us that

The CSCAR investigation has revealed several alarming cases in which concealed handgun permit holders committed horrific acts of gun violence

and go on to provide three examples of those alarming cases.

The post ends with

We are constantly told by the National Rifle Association and its gun lobby partners that concealed handgun permit holders are the most "law-abiding citizens" in America. It’s now abundantly clear that such a guarantee holds little or no weight in Michigan.

Now, let's back up a bit.

Smack dab in the middle of the post, we get a link to an MLive.com article covering this investigation.

Now the article notes

License holders now stand at more than 270,000, double the number five years ago.

We also learn that

The records indicate a tiny fraction of permit-holders break the law

Also,

more than 1,000 charges were listed in the most recent annual report

which, if I'm reading the article correctly, means that there were more than 1,000 cases of problems.

If we just take the 1,000 charges listed, plus the three cases the post quotes, we get 1,003 cases of trouble.

Now according to the MLive.com article, there are, to date, more than 270,000 permit holders. Let's just go with 270,000 for this example.

Do some math with those numbers and we see that 0.37% of the current number of permit holders went bad. (1,003 / 270,000 x 100 = 0.37148, rounded up to 0.37)

0.37%.

Less than a full 1%.

Not even half a percent.

Let's look at it another way.

270,000 permit holders to date - 1,003 trouble cases = 268,997 permit holders who did not get into trouble.

Or if you like percentages, that's 99.63% of permit holders who did not get into trouble.

Now mind you, these are just calculations based on the numbers in both the CSGV/Ordinary People post and the MLive.com article. The 270,000 is noted as the number of license holders to date. To me, that means as of the writing of the MLive.com article (2011). Of the three cases the post mentions, two happened in 2009, the other in 2010.

A better analysis might be to compare total permit holders vs. permit holders gone bad on a yearly basis.

But for the purposes of this example, let's look at it as totals to date.

So-- of the 270,000 permit holders to date, 0.37% of them went bad and 99.63% did not get into trouble.

The point?

CSGV only wants you to look at the several alarming cases revealed in the investigation.

They purposely disregard the rest of the cases in which nothing bad happened.

Because that undermines their agenda.

And we can't have that.

The VPC Lies With Numbers

2012-01-20T07:30:00.000-08:00

Following up on the previous VPC post...

Let's go back to the VPC's webpage and to the box on the left side of the page. The one labeled "Concealed Carry Killers."

Now, if you click on the words "Concealed Carry Killers," you go to this page and get a cool chart giving various types of totals and neat little number wheels beneath each heading.

Lookee here:

Lots of numbers. And some big numbers.

Which, at first glance, leads the Average Person, to believe, "My god! Concealed Carriers kill lots of people!"

But let's take another look, shall we?

See that number in the middle of the chart? The one labeled: "Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers." That one.

385.

385 people killed by concealed carry killers since May 2007.

The page notes:

Above is the current tally from May 2007 to the present of killings involving persons with concealed carry permits or who committed a killing in public with a legal handgun in a state that allows concealed carry without a permit (Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont allow the carrying of concealed handguns without a permit)

So.

385 people.

385 people to date.

To date, meaning as of 19 January 2012.

Also as of 19 January 2012, the total population of the United States was 312,877,956 as of 20:23 UTC.

Some math:

385 people killed out of 312,877,956 total people is 0.0012%

385 people killed out of 312,877,956 means 312,877,571 people survived.

Okay, let's look at the two numbers on the right. Mass shootings and murder-suicides committed by concealed carry killers.

You'd initially assume a total of 49 for both labels. 20 for mass shootings, 29 for murder-suicides. But if you read through the two reports (PDF files) linked to each box of numbers and account for overlapping names, you actually get a total of 39.

So to date, 39 concealed carriers committed killings.

LegallyArmed.com appears to carry statistics on the number of concealed carriers around the country. According to their current numbers, there are 6,972,652 concealed carriers in the U.S.

More math:

Out of the total number of concealed carriers, 39 committed killings (according to the VPC) while 6,972,613 did not commit any killings.

In percentages, that's 0.00055% of total concealed carriers who committed killings.

So what do we have?

To date:

0.0012% of the total U.S. population were killed by concealed carriers, or 385 out of 312,877,956
0.00055% of the total number of concealed carrier committed killings, or 39 out of 6,972,652

Are we saying we should excuse those concealed carriers for their crimes?

Hell no. Punish them properly.

But don't begin to imply by your "studies" that killings by concealed carriers is some sort of pandemic.

When you do, you're just lying to the public.

Gun Control Cultists Like To Generalize

2012-01-20T06:30:00.000-08:00

Here's the VPC's page as of yesterday, 19 January, around 10-ish in the morning. (Yeah, it's the upper portion of the page, but it's their page.)

Look on the left-hand side of the page, the box headed "Concealed Carry Killers" and sporting a nifty bullet hole graphic.

Right off, what kind of mental picture are we getting here?

We've got the words "concealed carry" and "killers" paired together.

The Average Person, when seeing those words, will likely immediately assume all persons who carry concealed are killers.

Now, look at this tweet in that box. (I marked it for clarity.)

Here's a better look, from VPC's Twitter status page:

Egads! It's listed under "Concealed Carry Killers" which must mean, by leaping to conclusions, that this woman planned to kill people!"

But go read the article they link to. It notes:

[NBC 5] reports that she told police she forgot the gun was in her bag.

But the VPC conveniently forgets that little tidbit of info and only tells you the woman went aboard a plane with a gun and later got arrested.

See what the VPC is doing here?

Sin of omission, for one thing.

But more importantly, guilt by association.

Here's what they want you to be thinking: "Since some concealed carriers have committed horrific crimes including killing people, then it must follow that all concealed carriers are planning to kill people."

This, of course, makes no sense.

This is the same as saying if there is one bad apple in a bushel, then the entire bushel must be bad.

This is also the same as saying if a robbery is committed by a black or Hispanic male, then all black or Hispanic males are robbers.

Go. Read. Now.

2012-01-19T07:45:00.000-08:00

An Open Response to Joan Peterson by Barron Barnett.

'Nuff said.

More Gun Rights Push In Kalifornia

2012-01-19T07:30:00.000-08:00

Firearms training school Front Sight is spearheading a campaign to put Shall Issue on the 2012 Ballot.

Another one to watch.

Lawsuit To Challenge CA Gun Laws

2012-01-19T06:30:00.000-08:00

Got this press release in my inbox a few days ago and thought I'd share:

California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr has been served with a Federal Summons requiring him to explain why California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm is constitutional, particularly the state's ban on openly carrying a loaded handgun.

Read the rest of the release here and the filed suit here.

Gonna keep an eye on this one.

The Gun Control Cult

2012-01-18T20:30:00.000-08:00

Enough with the euphemisms. It's time to call Gun Control Advocates what they really are.

Cultists.

Gun Control Cultists.

This is a variation on the term "anti-rights cultists" and I'm going to use it to mean the same thing.

For the origin of the term "anti-rights cultists," I direct you to Linoge's post here.

CSGV Lets It Slip?

2012-01-18T20:15:00.000-08:00

This tweet from @CSGV earlier today is...different.

Closer:

Do you really think they mean it?

I'm a little skeptical.

But there it is.

Gun Control = Insanity Thinking

2012-01-17T07:00:00.000-08:00

Gun Control Advocates want us to believe that a certain population of people who routinely and willfully rape, steal, and/or commit murder will suddenly obey a law prohibiting the possessions and/or use of firearms.

That, Folks, is called "insanity."

I'm challenging you, Gun Control Advocates.

Joan Peterson (aka japete). Dennis Henigan, Karen Arntzen, and the Brady Campaign. Sen. Feinstein. Joshua Horwitz, Ladd Everitt, and the rest of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Mayor Bloomberg and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. And the rest of you out there.

Explain: How exactly does that work?

What makes that particularly law (gun control/gun ban) more effective than the other laws (against rape, theft, murder, etc)?

And why would a criminal (for lack of a better word) follow that law but not the others?

Go on.

I'm waiting.

MLK And Guns

2012-01-16T13:10:00.000-08:00

Pop on over to the Brady Campaign's site and you'll see this graphic featuring Martin Luther King, Jr.
On it are the words:

"He would have lit a candle against the darkness of gun violence."

Yet Adam Winkler, author of the book Gunfight* notes that

King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Reason.com's Damon Root agrees:

There’s nothing unusual about this. Many civil rights activists—including those who publicly engaged in non-violent forms of resistance—kept guns for self-defense.

But the Brady Campaign wants you to think otherwise with this nice little banner graphic of theirs.

They want you to think that King wouldn't have anything to do with guns.

This is called "intentionally misleading."

And that's simply fucked up.

*an Amazon affiliate link

Gun Control Advocates Say: Don't Analyze Data in Context

2012-01-09T08:00:00.001-08:00

Submitted for your approval...

WISQARS data for 1996 shows 2,457 firearm homicides for those age 15 - 19.*

To this, Gun Control Advocates would be decrying the excessive violence and shaking their fists at guns and beating their breasts in sorrow.

"2,457 young people are dead because of guns!" they'd wail. "Shame upon our lawless society! Cursed be guns and those who dally with them!"

WISQARS data also shows the population of those age 15 - 19 in 1996: 18,920,160

2,457 is 0.013% of 18,920,160.

In 1996, the total U.S. population was 265,189,794.

2,457 is 0.00093% of 265,789,794.

No no no.

That simply won't do.

2,457 is a much better number to use than 0.013% or 0.00093%

It's a bigger number, you see.

Better to say

In 1996, 2,457 young people between the ages of 15 and 19 died due to firearm violence

rather than

In 1996, 0.00093% of the total U.S. population died due to firearm violence.

See?

Much better.

*if the link isn't working, the data also available as an Excel spreadsheet here

The Brady Campaign Is Full of Bullshit

2012-01-04T08:00:00.001-08:00

Over at the Brady Campaign's website is a section showing a map of states color-coded by how weak or strong their gun laws are.

Look at the map and you'll see good ol' California color-coded in the 75-100 range. Choose California from the drop-down menu and you'll find that Cali actually scored 80 out of a possible 100 points.

Once again, California holds the top spot with the nation’s strongest gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of guns without background checks and reduce risks to children

So why is it that according to this report (PDF) from the BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, California has tallied over 1,000 firearm-related homicides each year between 1999 and 2007?

From Table 3:

1999: 1,380
2000: 1,483
2001: 1,589
2002: 1,810
2003: 1,782
2004: 1,808
2005: 1,878
2006: 1,883
2007: 1,701

Why would a state with strong gun laws still have firearm homicides numbering over 1,000 every year?

Shouldn't there be zero firearm-related homicides?

I mean, strong gun laws should deter such crimes, right?

Right?

Okay, Brady Campaign. Explain that one to me.

Otherwise, I call "bullshit."

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T01:00:00.000-08:00

It's 2012!

Just 364 days before the world ends, right?

Back to blogging in a couple of days.

See you soon!

(photo: peterl1084/flickr)

Merry Christmas, Folks!

2011-12-25T05:00:00.000-08:00

A very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Kick back, relax, and enjoy.

We'll see you back here after New Year's Day.

(photo: Talis Source Blog/scottfeldstein)

Gun Control Advocates Say: Comply With Rapists

2011-12-19T08:00:00.001-08:00

The Gun Control Crowd loves to tell us that all you have to do to defend yourself against a violent assault is to comply with the criminal. If a mugger wants your wallet, give it to him.

On July 19, 2009, Isaiah Kalebu crawled into a Seattle couple's open window then raped and repeatedly stabbed Teresa Butz and her partner.

According to a police report, neighbors on South Rose Street were awakened shortly after 3 a.m. by the terrified pleading of Butz and her partner, who had just escaped from their home.

Butz told neighbor Albert Barrientes before dying, "He told us if we did what he asked us to do, he wouldn't hurt us. He lied, he lied," according to the Associated Press.

Now think about it. Especially you Ladies out there.

The Gun Control Folks are telling you that you must comply with a rapist.

Pretty nice of them, right?

A Modest Proposal to Fight Gun Violence

2011-12-12T08:00:00.001-08:00

Want to know how best to fight gun violence?

Try these recommendations:

1. Make programs that track and prosecute convicted violent felons with guns a feature in every major city.

2. Support mandatory hard time for criminals who commit gun crimes.

3. Support legislation that sends career criminals to finish their careers in prison as well as measures like truth in sentencing and the abolition or restriction of parole.

Like it?

Then thank Wayne LaPierre and James Jay Baker.

It's from their book Shooting Straight*.

Pick up a copy. It's an excellent book to have in your gun rights library.

*This is an affiliate link

Who The Hell Are You Calling An "Outlier"?

2011-12-05T08:00:00.003-08:00

Over on Sean's blog, he's got this post on how to argue gun control and quotes from a CDC report on the effectiveness of firearm laws.

I wanna focus on something rather interesting I found in that report.

Toward the end, the report notes:

This is a critical period for focused research on the effectiveness of firearms laws in reducing violence in the United States. International comparisons indicate that the United States is an outlier among developed, industrialized nations in rates of firearms violence

and cites a 1998 article from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Hear that?

We're an outlier.

Now I don't have access to that article to check the data.

But, that same article is quoted in a report from the Firearm & Injury Center at Penn called Firearm Injury in the U.S.(PDF):

Compared to other industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United States are disproportionately high. Of the approximately 50 upper- and middle-income countries with available data, an estimated 115,000 firearm deaths occur annually and the U.S. contributes about 30,000.

Figure 4 on page 8 of the report then lists the countries in question.

If we take the top 5 high income countries from that list, in addition to the U.S., and look at their number of homicides and homicide rates for 2008 (data taken from this spreadsheet from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime), we get:

U.S. 9,484 (3.1)
Canada 196 (0.6)
Austria 18 (0.2)
Belgium 70 (0.7)
Denmark 6 (0.1)
England/Wales 38 (0.1)

(NOTE: Data for Austria was only available for 2006, 2004 for Belgium)

Yeah.

Based on the numbers above, the U.S. rate runs some 3 times higher.

Outlier.

But--

But--

Let's also look at Brazil and Mexico. According to Figure 4 from the report, both countries are classified as "upper middle income countries."

Data from the spreadsheet gets us the following for number of homicides and homicide rates:

Brazil 34,678 (18.1)
Mexico 5,095 (4.6)

Whoa! That's interesting.

The U.S. is an outlier? At 3.1?

What does that make Brazil and Mexico?

"But wait!" you say. "Mexico has less homicides than we do. 5,095 versus our 9,484."

True.

But Brazil still beats us with 34,678 homicides. Over 25,000 more than us.

And, here's something else interesting--they have strict gun licensing and registration requirements.

Given that, how exactly will stricter gun laws lower firearm violence?

Because that is the point of the CDC report. Finding better gun laws--better than the some 20,000 already on the books--to reduce firearm deaths.

But looking at Brazil, how exactly with even stricter laws work?

And how exactly are we outliers?

Windsor, Ontario: "No Way In Hell."

2011-11-29T06:30:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-28T08:00:00.002-08:00

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!

2011-11-24T04:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-21T08:00:00.002-08:00

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

2011-11-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-11-15T08:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-14T08:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-13T16:59:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't apologize.

Instead he says this:

(h/t: USA Carry)

Gun Free Zones = Death

2011-11-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-09T08:10:00.000-08:00

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...

2011-11-09T08:00:00.000-08:00

How The Hell Can You Be An Armed Californian?

2011-11-08T08:00:00.000-08:00

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!

2011-11-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-07T08:00:00.001-08:00

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?

2011-11-06T08:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-11-03T08:25:00.000-07:00

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

Jerry Brown Is Clueless

2011-10-19T06:45:00.000-07:00

As we all know, Gov. Brown recently signed a law making open carry illegal in California.

Know what? It's just another "feel good" law that won't deter crime. So now the law-abiding citizen will be unable to openly carry an unloaded firearm.

But the bad guys will still carry guns.

And they'll carry them concealed.

Until they violently assault you or your place of business.

Because they don't follow the law.

It's nice to see our state criminalizing something that used to be legal. Did you know law-abiding Californians used to be able to carry LOADED firearms in public until 1967? Go look up the Mulford Act.

And while you're at it, go look up any reports (news stories or otherwise) that show a person open-carrying an unloaded firearm committing a crime. Not that they frightened some members of the public. Not that they were prohibited persons who technically aren't supposed to be able to have a firearm.

A normal person who open carries who went into a place of business and robbed it using that carried firearm or commited a violent crime against another person using that carried firearm.

Have a look at this video from Reason.tv, especially around 4:38. Listen to what Portantino says, before he clarifies his statement.

Then consider: the Mulford Act was signed into law in 1967. It's 2011.

44 years.

Where are the news reports of crimes, injuries, and/or deaths caused by open-carry during those 44 years?

Where are they?

Show me.

Show me now.

The Brady Campaign Forgets History

2011-09-23T10:37:00.000-07:00

A recent email from our friends at the Brady Campaign warned

Rick Perry -- Will We Have a Pistol-Packing President?

and went on to tell me

Proud and packing, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s extremist "guns everywhere" ideology is something he will insist on imposing on the whole of America if he becomes President - you can be sure of that. Over at the NRA they must be rubbing their hands with glee.

WE MUST STOP RICK PERRY WHILE WE STILL CAN.

First--the "guns everywhere" ideology is misleading and is really a bit of scaremongering.

Current law forbids certain people (for instance, convicted felons) from owning firearms.

And just because a law allows the legal carry of firearms doesn't mean its mandatory. A person can choose whether or not they will carry.

No one is forcing you to do so.

And the scaremongering part? By saying "guns everywhere" Paul and Co. want you to think anybody with a gun is coming to kill you. The implication, yet again, is that only criminals have guns, therefore gun-owners are criminals and they're coming to kill you.

Second, ~~Paul~~ Dennis and Co. seem to have forgotten our own President Teddy Roosevelt:

[Theodore Roosevelt]'s behavior after receiving his honorary LL.D. was so archetypal as to imprint itself on the eyes and ears of many observers. [Harvard president] Dr. Eliot escorted him to a guest suite to change, and watched with fascination as he tore off his coat and vest and slammed a large pistol on the dresser. Eliot asked if it was his habit to carry firearms. "Yes, when I am going into public places." *

I don't recall history telling us that Roosevelt forced America into a "guns everywhere" policy around the turn of the century.

Unless there's some bit of history I'm not aware of?

* Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex, p.117 (Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2002)

The Brady Campaign Wants You Dead

2011-09-22T13:45:00.000-07:00

The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups would've preferred the rape and murder of these college students.

"Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all," said student Charles Bailey.

If it hadn't been for the quick thinking of one of the students held hostage, grabbing a gun from a backpack and using it against the invaders, these students would be dead by now.

But if you leave it up to the Bradys and their cohorts, that student wouldn't have been able to save his friends.

They'd be dead.

And that's really what ~~Paul Helmke~~ Dennis Henigan and Co. want.

They don't want you to protect yourself. They want you dead.

Yes, it's an old news report. But it clearly shows how a gun in the right hands can save lives.

And a gun in the hands of a college student no less.

Click here for the news video of that report.

Misleading Us Yet Again

2011-09-08T08:45:00.000-07:00

Here's someting that stood out for me in the Brady Campaign's recent press release about missing guns:

Weak federal gun laws allow gun manufacturers and dealers to operate without security or inventory controls.

And yet Title 19, Section 923(g)(1)(A) of the US Code states:

Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe.

So the law is weak how?

Scary Numbers To Scare You

2011-09-07T12:30:00.000-07:00

Here's a scary report from our Friends at the Brady Campaign:

A new Brady Center report, "Missing Guns: Lost and Dangerous" shows that licensed gun manufacturers nationwide "lost" an average of at least 18 firearms every day over the last two and a half years, according to a Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence analysis of new data released in August by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Scary, isn't it.

18 firearms every day.

Wow.

Actually, it only seems scary.

Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

On page 5 of the report (click here for the PDF file) we get two sets of criteria for the numbers--

Firearms initially missing from inventory determined at inspection
Firearms still missing after searching records and inventory

Let's call them F1 and F2, respectively.

The "18 firearms every day" comes from the total F2 figures for 2009, 2010, and mid-2011.

That total comes to 16,485.

The "18 per day" comes from the following math:

16, 485 missing firearms / 912.5 total days* = 18.065 missing per day

But this is kinda misleading.

Think about it.

That statistic of "18 per day" supposes a repeating event over a period of time. Like your pulse, for example.

It's saying that every single day, including Saturday and Sunday, 18 guns disappear from gun factories.

Unless they can document 18 firearms being lost every day, I call "Bullshit!"

Don't think I'm downplaying losing 16,000+guns.

I'm not.

That's a goodly amount to lose in two and a half years.

But consider this--

According to the report, F2 in 2009 was 11,178. That's 11,178 guns that went missing from U.S. Gun Manufacturers.

But the ATF's Annual Manufacturing Report for 2009 shows a total of 5,417,003 firearms (pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles) manufactured in the U.S.

So the percentage of missing guns comes out to:

11,178 / 5,417,003 x 100 = 0.206%

0.206%

Not even 1%.

In fact, not even half a percent.

I know. 11,000+ guns lost in 2009 isn't anything to sneeze at.

But in the context of 5,000,000+ manufactured that same year?

*More math: 912.5 days = 365 days (2009) + 365 days (2010) + 182.5 days (mid-2011)

Back Again...

2011-09-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, Folks. We're back.

We weren't actually gone. Just busy with other projects.

So let's get back to raving, mmm-kay?

Anti-Gunners Don't Care About Crime

2011-01-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

Want to know if gun control groups are serious about fighting gun violence?

Go on their websites and find any recommendations for better enforcement of the 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

Go on their websites and find any suggestions on how to better control crime that doesn't mention guns.

Anything?

That should immediately tell you something.

Anti-Gunners Only Like It When Lots of People Die

2010-12-29T06:00:00.000-08:00

Lots of anti-gun uproar after Columbine and Virginia Tech.

No anti-gun uproar after Wisconsin.

Why not?

Stop Gun Violence By Stopping Crime

2010-12-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

This this this, folks. Take notes.

Violent crime plunged this year in Richmond, a fact not lost on flatland residents long plagued by endemic gunfire.

[...]

In Richmond, officials view the statistical change as evidence that the new approaches seem to help....

"We are gradually implementing a number of new programs, and we've made a huge effort to engage the community," police Chief Chris Magnus said. "There's no single strategy that does the trick. It's about finding the right combination."

Much went right in 2010 for police. During a time when departments across the country were cut due to budget pressures, Richmond hired. The department reached full staffing, about 200 sworn officers, for the first time in nearly a decade.

New approaches also bore early fruit. A team of detectives now works closely with the state Department of Corrections to closely track parolees, and the department restored narcotics and gang intelligence teams erased by earlier budget cuts.

A new arrangement with Contra Costa Superior Court and nonprofit youth centers helps to enforce a new daytime curfew for minors, many of whom chronically cut school and wind up as crime suspects and victims. And the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office staffs a prosecutor specifically to handle low-level gun crimes in the city, to identify potential shooters before they act.

Richmond also added gunshot detection technology to the city grid, which helps police quickly track street violence, along with monitored video cameras at historically troubled corners.

But, above all, beat officers credit the drop in violence to the evolution of the geographic, patrol-based community policing plan that began in 2006.

See anything in that list about gun control measures? Pressing for more background checks? Stopping the gun show loophole? One-gun-a-month mandates?

No.

It's all about policing crime where it happens. On the streets. In the neighborhoods.

Gun violence? Sure, it still happens.

Is it because of gun show loopholes?

No.

Reducing available targets helps, because the lion's share of shootings in Richmond are impulsive, officials say. Conflicts that lead to shootings often stem from disagreements related to social pecking order, violations of personal respect, and pressure to defend friends from such violations.

Read the bolded part again.

That's why it happens. In cities plagued by gangs and gang violence that result in shootings.

This is how you do it, people.

You want to stop gun violence?

This is how you start.

Stun Gun Violence!!!

2010-12-27T08:25:00.000-08:00

Over in San Francisco

Two women sitting in a parked car in San Francisco's Balboa Terrace neighborhood were attacked by men who shocked them with a stun gun, then fled with their purses, police said Thursday.

Stun guns are dangerous. I bet these guys just walked into a corner store and bought them.

Which shows you that anybody can get one. Without a background check!!

Especially with their pistol grips and shoulder-thing-that-goes-up, terrorists the world over will be rushing to get their hands on this.

Next thing you know, these things will be heading down to Mexico. Mexico, fer Pete's sake!

We need to do something about this now! Think of the children! Finding one in the closet then shocking each other. And their friends.

Even worse--another Columbine.

Or Virginia Tech.

If your teenager or young adult starts writing things like "I am Zeus" or "Ride the lightning!!1!1!" on their facebook page, you'll know the next step is buying a stun gun and committing a massacre.

The madness has to stop!

(Creation of the Campaign to Prevent Stun Gun Violence in 5...4...3...2...)

Thought For The Day: Gun Control Groups

2010-12-27T06:00:00.000-08:00

Gun Control Groups are places where common sense goes to die.

VPC's Josh Sugarmann Hates You

2010-12-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

Specifically, Josh Sugarmann hates anyone who believes in the right to self-defense.

Josh posts about the NRA's 2010 Holiday Catalog and notes the presence of weapons that

seems to involve a lot of paranoid stabbing, cutting, and lethal poking.

Josh wants to imply that having these weapons in a catalog means the NRA is paranoid and lethal and therefore in a similar class to others who are paranoid and lethal--criminals.

But in reality, Josh does not believe that you, Dear Reader, are entitled to protect yourself from assault.

Josh would prefer that you let yourself be assaulted.

He would prefer that you let your son be beaten.

He would prefer that you let your wife or daughter be raped.

Because having tools to protect yourself

involve a lot of paranoid stabbing, cutting, and lethal poking

and that's a no-no.

Isn't Josh nice?

Merry Christmas Folks

2010-12-25T01:00:00.000-08:00

A very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Kick back, relax, and enjoy.

We'll be back to the raving in a couple of days.

(photo: Talis Source Blog/scottfeldstein)

The Goddard Campaign To Create More Victims

2010-12-22T10:50:00.000-08:00

Looks like Colin and dad, Andrew, will add their voices to the anti-gun blogosphere in a new upcoming blog.

Or better: "Looks like Colin and dad, Andrew, will parrot Brady and other anti-gun talking points in a new upcoming blog."

(h/t: Sebastian)

Gun Show Loophole Misdirection

2010-12-22T06:00:00.000-08:00

While paging through the Brady Bunch's site, I came across the following article: "Rebutting the Gun Lobby"* It's meant to rebut "the most common gun lobby claims" on the "gun show loophole."

There's one rebuttal that stood out for me and I want to share that one with you.

Here's the claim being rebutted:

There is no such thing as the “gun show loophole.” Every sale that requires a background check outside a gun show requires a background check inside a gun show.

The Brady Bunch then gives you the quick answer, some background, then a key anecdote to use.

Here's what stood out for me. The key anecdote.

They write:

You can use this story from the high profile Columbine shooting to show that criminals obtain guns at gun shows. The Columbine shooters exploited the gun show loophole to obtain three of the guns they used in their massacre. The Columbine shooters were not old enough to buy their shotguns and rifle from a licensed dealer because they were not yet 18. They recruited their friend Robyn Anderson, age 18, to buy the guns for them at the Tanner gun show in Colorado. The killers specifically looked for an unlicensed seller so there would be no paperwork or background check. Anderson stated in testimony to the Colorado legislature, “It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn’t have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check” (Congressional Record - Senate, 2000).

Based on this, clearly the "gun show loophole"--that private party gun sellers who aren't licensed to sell guns--allowed criminals to get guns. In this instance, the Columbine shooters got their guns from a private seller and went off to perform the massacre.

Back up a minute and look closer.

Harris and Klebold could not buy guns because they were under 18. They asked their friend, Robyn Anderson, to buy the guns for them because she was 18. She did.

Full stop.

This is called a straw purchase and violates federal law.

But the Brady Bunch glosses over this little tidbit and misdirects us with Anderson's sob story:

“It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn’t have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check”

This is a subtle blame on the private seller who didn't do a background check and makes us focus on the cause (non-background checking private seller) that led to the effect (Columbine massacre).

But the plain fact is this: Robyn Anderson violated federal law by buying the guns for Harris and Klebold.

*There's no direct link to the article. When you click the above link, scroll down to the 5th bullet point (pun intended) and click the arrow.

Anti-Gunners Want You To Be Raped

2010-12-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

Tampa Florida, January 2010:

Eighteen minutes of terror recorded by a 911 dispatcher.

"Let me go home, let me go home.. please God just let me go home!" the victim pleaded.

A woman cries and begs for her life after Tampa Police Captain Hugh Miller said she was held against her will and sexually battered by Tommy Lee Sailor, 37, on New Year's Day.

A clip from a CourtTV program in which a woman is raped while on the phone with 911.

A Connecticut mother tries to appease her abductors and

may have believed her abductors would let her go, but they are accused of taking her home where she was sexually assaulted and killed. They also tied up and assaulted her husband

These women did not have to end up as statistics.

With the proper mindset, training, and practice, they could have defended themselves with a firearm.

But the anti-gunners don't want you to defend yourself with a firearm.

According to Sarah Brady:

"To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."
(Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993)

Her husband,Jim Brady, on handgun ownership:

"For target shooting, that’s okay....For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments."
("In Step With: James Brady," Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994, p. 18)

Read that second part again:

"For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments."

Yet in all three cases above, the police came after the attack.

So tell me--do you really think gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and the VPC are concerned with your personal safety?

ATF Creates Fake "Emergency"

2010-12-19T09:00:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post recently revived the 90% Argument ("that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the U.S."). A New York Times editorial jumped on the bandwagon.

Now the ATF has called for "emergency regulations" requiring FFLs along the Mexican border to report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within a five consecutive day period.

Sebastian noted the ATF has no authority to do this.

So I call "bullshit."

Bullshit on overstepping authority.

(And further bullshit on rehashing that tired old 90% Argument. But we'll deal with that in an upcoming post...)

Brady Bunch Budget Shortfall?

2010-12-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

According to an email from Paul "I'm Full of Bullshit" Helmke and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership, they have a budget gap.

As you know, we've had to fight on more fronts than ever....But all of this comes at a cost. If we can not close our budget shortfall, we will have to make significant changes to our game plan next year...We've already taken steps to reduce our expenses. To succeed, it's going to take the combined effort of each and every one of us. Please make a donation today.

Every single dollar is urgently needed right now. Whether your contribution is large or small, every little bit helps.

What's this?

How can the Brady Campaign be experiencing a budget shortfall?

Don't they continually tell us that the majority of Americans are on their side when it comes to "preventing gun violence?" If so, shouldn't their coffers be overflowing?

I mean, after all, the majority of Americans on their side must be a lot, right?

Remember when I wrote about the protest of Open Carry by members of the Northern California chapter of the Brady Campaign? How I was absolutely amazed at the staggering and overwhelming numbers they presented?

And by "overwhelming numbers" I mean 10 people?

Based simply on those numbers alone, I fail to see why the Brady Campaign has a budget shortfall.

Why is that, Friend ~~Flicka~~ Paul?

Gun Control: An Alternative Look

2010-12-18T09:00:00.000-08:00

Here's another way of looking at the gun control issue.

Imagine, if you will, a grade school classroom with 30 kids and one teacher.

Now, let's say the teacher creates three rules for the classroom, rules the kids must follow, rules that keep the classroom orderly and conducive to learning.

The three rules are

1. No talking during lessons
2. Stay in your seats during lessons.
3. Respect your fellow classmates.

Now, suppose that despite those rules, ten out of the thirty kids repeatedly do not follow them and continually disrupt class. In addition, they push the other kids around.

Okay--now suppose that in order to punish the ten kids for not following the rules, the teacher decides to create more rules of conduct.

The ten kids still don't follow.

So the teacher creates even more rules.

In every instance, the twenty kids who actually follow the rules are finding themselves saddled with more and sometimes stricter rules.

They'll follow them, of course. They're good students.

But those ten kids repeatedly do not.

And the teacher creates even more rules.

Think about this for a moment.

As a solution, does it make sense?

Go ahead. Think about it.

No. It doesn't make sense.

Here's the thing: this is exactly what gun control is doing.

The ten kids (criminals) are breaking the three rules (established gun laws) so in response, the teacher (gun control advocates) create more rules to make sure the three rules are being followed.

Now let me ask you: if you thought the classroom example didn't work, what makes you think gun control efforts will?

Idiots on Parade

2010-12-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

Here are two op-ed pieces from folks who've been brainwashed by anti-gun lies.

The first is from one John van Horn of Kansas City.* The second is from Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald.

Both use the two biggest anti-gun whoppers.

Let me show you.

GUN OWNERS ARE THE SAME AS CRIMINALS
John-Boy:

Thank you, Second Amendment advocates. Thank you NRA. Thank you gun show merchants who sell firearms without background checks. Thank you pawn shop owners.

Thank you for allowing the least stable among us access to guns. Thank you for arming gangs and for making so many citizens feel that their only safety lies in gun ownership.

Freddy:

Once again, innocents in communities like Liberty City suffered the murderous reality created by Second Amendment absolutists -- those who talk of the right to own military assault weapons as if these guns should be regarded no differently than handguns or hunting rifles.

It helps that gun theorists and their sycophant politicians reside well away from the vicinity of Victory Homes, the misnomer along Northwest 73rd Street, next to a warehouse strung with concertina wire, where a sleeping mother and a baby can become collateral damage in a gangbanger demonstration of American gun culture.

Notice how John-Boy implies that gun rights folks somehow arm gangs but misses the fact that a prohibited person cannot legally acquire a firearm.

Notice how Freddy equates "gun theorists" with "gangbangers." He spends the majority of his op-ed talking about gangbangers and drive-by gunmen--criminals who are legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

None of his examples are of legal gun-owners.

Seeing an anti-gunner pattern here?

NO GUNS NEEDED; THE POLICE WILL PROTECT US
Says John-Boy:

We do not live on the frontier. Police help is available to citizens with cell phones in a matter of minutes.

We've gone over the myth of police protection before.

Here's the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter (Warren v. District of Columbia, see page 4):

....official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection....This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Now let me show you the deadly part of John-Boy's lie:

Police help is available to citizens with cell phones in a matter of minutes.

According to the 2007 Criminal Victimization in the United States Statistical Tables, Table 107: for crimes of violence, 37.6% of the incidents showed police response time between 11 minutes and 1 hour.

Look at that time again. Between 11 minutes and 1 hour.

Consider: a violent attack on your person may take less than a minute.

And the police are where at that point?

Do you see why that lie is deadly?

Yes, Dear Readers. You are correct.

These two are idiots.

*(h/t: David Codrea)

Helmke Resorts to Scaremongering and Half-Truths: Part Two

2010-12-17T06:00:00.000-08:00

Last time we looked at the way Paul used scare tactics in the opening of his November 19th Huffington Post entry.

Today, we're going to look at how Paul uses half-truths (and misdirection).

Here is Paul's central point:

Apparently the gun guys are upset that Traver did a TV interview where he helped demonstrate the lethality of an AK-47, while explaining, "Pull the trigger and you can mow down people." Then Traver added that, "the growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons" is a problem we should be concerned about.

[...]

...the NRA bosses are all tied up in knots because Traver didn't make it clear enough to the TV audience that a fully automatic weapon (like the one the reporter apparently blasted) can get a few rounds out more quickly than a semi-automatic and is not as readily available to the general public (although they would like it to be).

Half-truth and a bit of misleading. Yes, with an AK-47, if you pull the trigger you can mow down people.

But only if you have a true AK-47 assault rifle.

A true assault rifle is capable of selective-fire. That means there's a little knob you turn that lets you switch from semi-automatic fire (one pull of the trigger = one shot) and fully automatic fire (one pull of the trigger = many shots). Except for a few exceptions, a true assault rifle isn't readily available for sale to the general public.

Traver gives a misleading statement on that interview by making it seem like fully automatic AK-47s are available at every corner drug store.

From earlier in the entry:

Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home. (Wink. Wink.)

Since a fully automatic AK-47, and therefore a true assault rifle, is not readily available for sale to the general public, a civilian (or semi-automatic) version should logically be available. This (the semi-automatic version) is what most folks would have.

Again, Paul is trying to confused you with the semi-auto/full auto terminology. He wants you to think that the AK-47 your next door neighbor owns (the semi-automatic version) is the same as the fully automatic AK-47 a soldier (or, in Paul's view of the world, a gang mamber) would have.

Next up, Paul says

Semi-automatics are only a little less deadly than fully automatics. They can blast 106 rounds in less than two minutes. One of these weapons was used by Patrick Purdy in Stockton, California, helped him kill five children and wound 29 others.

The NRA bosses know full well that the semi-automatic military-style Uzi assault pistol used by James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others at the McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. And that the TEC-9 assault pistol used by the Columbine killers murdered 12 of their classmates and a teacher.

Yes, Virginia, if you believe in Santa Claus then you'll believe there is a significant difference worth debating between the killing efficiency of a fully automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic assault weapon.

First, the misdirection.

Notice that Paul uses the terms "semi-automatics" and "fully automatics" interchangeably when describing the weapons used by Purdy, Huberty, and the Columbine killers. He does this in that first paragraph above, when the word "they" immediately follows the term "fully automatics." This is similar to the VPC's ploy of playing on public confusion between the two terms:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

By using both terms to describe the "same" item, Paul hopes to further confuse readers and make them equate "semi-automatic" with "fully automatic."

Another misdirection: Back in that first paragraph up there (begins with "Semi-automatics are only...") the reader is meant to think Paul's about to compare the rate of fire between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. After all, he even provides a number: if the word "they" in the next sentence refers to "semi-automatics," then according to Paul, they can fire 106 rounds in less than two minutes.

But he fails to provide us with the comparable number of rounds that a fully automatic can fire. Instead, the reader is left to mistakenly assume that if semi-automatics are a little less deadly than fully automatics, and a semi-automatic can fire 106 rounds in less than two minutes, then "a little less deadly" means a fully automatic can fire, say, at least 110 rounds in less than two minutes.

After all, 106 rounds is "a little less" than 110 rounds.

Now some half-truths.

According to Paul

Semi-automatics are only a little less deadly than fully automatics. They can blast 106 rounds in less than two minutes.

and uses Patrick Purdy's gun as an example.

The "106 rounds in less than two minutes" is probably a reference to the reports that Purdy fired at least 100+ rounds in the three minute shooting that took place that day in 1989. Also according to those reports, Purdy used a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.

So: 106 rounds in less than two minutes?

I did an experiment. Given that a typical AK-47 carries 30 rounds in its magazine, I took a stopwatch and NERF gun that shoots foam darts and timed myself pulling the trigger 30 times (equal to shooting 30 rounds) as fast as I could. It came out to between 8 and 11 seconds. I then estimated at least 5 seconds to eject the spent magazine, pull a new one from some pocket or holder, insert it into the weapon, and be ready to fire again.

Doing the math, I show that according to my experiment, 120 rounds can be expended from a semi-automatic weapon in roughly 47 - 59 seconds, with 3 reloads.

Now, an AK-47 has a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute or 10 rounds per second. If it were fired at fully automatic using a 30-round magazine, it would take 3 seconds to expend a full magazine. Let's again say it takes 5 seconds to reload. Doing the math gives us 180 rounds expended in 59 seconds, with 5 reloads.

So which is deadlier?

Before we answer that, we need to define what "deadlier" means.

Are we talking about number of rounds fired? If so, then according to these numbers, fully automatic is deadlier than semi-automatic. 180 rounds vs. 120 rounds in under a minute.

Are we talking about number of people killed? If so, then the weapon Purdy used isn't very deadly if only 5 died. Huberty's Uzi assault pistol is far deadlier at 21 people killed.

Are we talking about the ammunition used? The AK-47 uses a 7.62mm bullet while the Uzi uses 9mm. The 7.62mm is a more powerful cartridge than the 9mm so the AK should be the deadlier of the two.

But Paul never elaborates on what he means by "a little less deadly."

So there you have it. Just a few examples of scare tactics, half-truths, and misdirection used by Paul and the Brady Campaign to try and make their point.

The Anti-Gun Agenda

2010-12-16T09:35:00.000-08:00

Thirdpower succinctly* outlines the Gun Control Agenda.

As you can see, a big part of the Gun Control Agenda is to bring us into Happy Singing-Dancing Unicorn Land, where there is no crime, no war, everybody's happy, and we all sing, dance, poop rainbows, and pee sparkles.**

*Yes, I did just use an SAT word.

**Yes, I did just make a post out of my comment.

Bloggery Doings

2010-12-16T06:30:00.000-08:00

As you can see, I've revamped the look of the blog just a bit. Figured it was time for a change.

I'll also be redoing the logo so the header will change soon, too.

Also updated the blogroll with some additional folks:

Hi guys! Nice to have you aboard.

And now, back to the raving...

"Common Gunsense" Isn't

2010-12-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

I honestly tried to read with an open mind but after a week of seeing the same tired responses, I gave up.

The blog Common Gunsense claims to be about "thoughtful discussion about how to prevent gun injuries and death."

It's anything but a discussion.

Unless your definition of discussion involves one person giving their statement, backing it up nothing that remotely resembles facts (or if it does, it's very misleading), and when someone rebuts them, they stick fingers in their ears and sing out "Lalalalalala! I'm not listening to you! You're a poop head!"

Want an example?

Here's one...

japete (who runs Common Gunsense) writes this post. In it she says

I need to know why compromise is off the table for some. I need to know why that works. I need to know how that will lead to better public safety and preventing people from being senselessly shot to death.

In the comments, she comes out and asks

What are you willing to compromise?

So one person responds

Compromise #1:

1) On ALL gun sales/transfers. The Seller must perform a criminal background check on a buyer who doesn't possess one of the following:

- a valid permit to purchase handgun/"assault" weapon with matching government ID (passport, DL, State ID Card)

- a valid permit to carry a handgun with matching government ID

- a valid curio & relic federal firearm license with matching government ID (for C&R transactions only)

The criminal background check must be setup to be run via a secure Internet site, utilizing a persons name, address and SS#. It must give back a "Pass" or "Fail" within a "reasonable" period of time. It must be free to use.

IN exchange for this further restriction of our rights - we ask that there be recognized nationwide reciprocity of Concealed Handgun Permits/Licenses free from individual state interpretation. This would require a standardized curriculum with training, and all fees would be "cost only".

How's that for compromise?

To which japete replies

I am not going to negotiate gun laws on this blog.

Wait a minute. She claims "thoughtful discussion" but immediately backs off when discussion begins?

That's not discussion.

Then in that same response she gives us a telling statement:

I don't know enough to do so.

Full stop.

She doesn't know enough about gun laws to negotiate? Yet she writes in favor of passing said laws?

And there you have it, Folks.

Idiocy at work.

An Anti-Gun Lie and the Florida School Board Shooting

2010-12-15T21:45:00.000-08:00

Anti-gunners are quick to say that we don't need guns for protection because that's what the police are for.

Watch this video of the Florida School Board shooting.

Then scoot along to about 1:42 of the video. You'll see the police entering the room, weapons drawn.

Now: where were the police when the gunman pulled out his weapon?

One more time:

Where were the police when the gunman pulled out his weapon?

If the anti-gunners are right and the police are supposed to protect us from folks like this shooter, where are they?

Watch the time on the video. At roughly 0:20, the gunman has painted the "V" symbol on the wall and has a pistol in hand. When the gunman finally drops to the floor after shooting at the school board members, we are at about 1:33.

Time elapsed: roughly 1:13

1 minute and 13 seconds of no police presence.

Okay, anti-gun folks. Explain exactly how the police were supposed to "protect" those school board members.

Saved by a Gun Free Zone...Not

2010-12-15T08:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday

A gunman opened fire at a Bay County, Fla., school board meeting Tuesday afternoon, taking aim at the school’s superintendent but injuring no one before fatally shooting himself.

A determined criminal will not be stopped the law, let alone a "Gun Free Zone."

The anti-gun folks make a big thing about Gun Free Zones. According to them, they are magical places where nothing bad will happen, where murderous gunmen will somehow be repelled if they get close, ~~where unicorns and talking bunnies dance and play and sing~~.

It's a lie.

This is a fine example of how well it works.

Another example: Virginia Tech.

Call Governor Christie

2010-12-14T13:30:00.000-08:00

From David Codrea's Examiner.com blog post:

CALL TO ACTION: On Wednesday, December 15 2010, please pick up your phone and call Governor Christie at 609-292-6000. Wish him a Merry Christmas and ask him to please Free Brian Aitken!!!

Get those phones ready.

Anti-Gunners Don't Care About People

2010-12-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

The Brady Campaign. The VPC. the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. CeaseFire. Other like-minded groups.

They don't care about you.

Anti-gun groups would prefer that the homeowners in this news story be unarmed. The fact that those homeowners would've been hurt or killed doesn't seem to matter.

And that's the truth behind the anti-gunners.

Colin Goddard Is A Coward

2010-12-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

Josh Horwitz wants to paint James D'Cruz as a potential school shooter based on the quotes and pictures on his Facebook page.

Okay.

Then I say Colin Goddard is a coward based on his own testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee.

Says Goddard

What started off as a typical day in a small town school in southwest Virginia, soon further expanded our definition of the worst mass-shooting in US history. Midway through my 9:00am French class, we began to hear muffled banging noises coming from somewhere outside of our classroom.

As soon as our teacher went to investigate the sounds, she slammed the door shut and told us to get under our desks and for someone to call 911. I took out my phone and, as I later found out, placed the only call to the police by someone in the building. The next 10-minute period was the longest 10-minute period of my entire life. It felt like hours.

....I had nowhere to escape and no time to react or even think. As I turned my head back, I told the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here, but I still didn't totally understand what that meant. The only decision that I was left with was to act as if I was already dead.

[...]

The force of the first bullet caused me to throw the phone from my hand and it landed next to the head of a girl named Emily. She picked it up and remained on the call with the police the entire time. Emily was ultimately able to give the dispatcher his location and help the SWAT team to get to us.

[...]

Each time he came back into our room I was shot again. The second and third time in both my hips and the fourth time through my right shoulder.

During Cho's 10 minute rampage, well before police arrived, Goddard was able to make a 911 call then stayed in place. Cho came and went from the room three times. No one did a thing. Not even Goddard.

Goddard even played dead.

A day after the shooting, while Colin was still in the hospital, he spoke to Lisa Ling for an Oprah Show special report. "I tried to act dead like I wasn't even moving," he told Lisa.

Go back to his testimony. He also says it there:

The only decision that I was left with was to act as if I was already dead.

His mother, Ann Goddard, says he was

"absolutely scared to death....He kept his wits about him, but he was scared to death."

He kept his wits but did nothing.

When Cho entered the room, Goddard says:

I had nowhere to escape and no time to react or even think. As I turned my head back, I told the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here

No time to react or think but he was able to tell the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here?

The shooting took 10 minutes. Before police got to the scene.

10 minutes.

10 minutes.

And nothing done.

Count off 10 minutes. Use a stopwatch. Use a timer. Now sit there and do nothing until the stopwatch or timer finishes.

Cho had that much time to wreck havoc.

No, you say? Goddard's not a coward? Not a coward because of the deadly nature of his situation? Not a coward because to have done something would've put his life in ever more danger?

Bullshit.

Wanna talk about acting against a threat despite the danger, despite being scared? How about the passengers of Flight 93?

From a phone call between Tom Burnett and his wife Deena, aboard United Flight 93 on 9/11:

Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I'm putting a plan together.

Deena: Who's helping you?

Tom: Different people. Several people. There's a group of us.

Writes Jeffrey Snyder in his essay "A Nation of Cowards":

Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens.

Am I saying D'Cruz is a hero?

No.

But to demonize him, especially when he has a Halloween photograph of himself dressed up like a Prohibition-era gangster carrying a gun?

That's freakin' low.

Somebody is desperate for a scapegoat.

Okay. Fine.

Two can play that game.

Violent Anti-Gunners

2010-12-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

Remember our California Brady Friend, Karen Arntzen? She's the one who said:

"They say that they are law abiding citizens but there's no way of knowing that. There's no accountability for this group"

She's talking about open carry advocates and, by extension, gun owners.

So according to Karen, even if we say we are law-abiding, there's no way of knowing that for sure.

Implication: We (gun rights folks) say we are but really, we aren't.

Further implication: we (gun rights folks) are criminals while they (the anti-gunners) are respectable, moral folks.

Enter White Plains, NY Mayor Adam Bradley. Mayor Bradley is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. If we follow Karen's logic, Mayor Bradley is an anti-gun person and must also be an upstanding citizen.

Mayor Bradley, the Upstanding Citizen, was just found guilty of attempted assault on his wife.

um...Karen? You were saying...?

(h/t: Uncle)

More Buyback Follies

2010-12-10T05:45:00.000-08:00

This one is in San Bernadino, CA, scheduled for December 18th.

Good luck with that. Tell us when it actually makes the 1,908 violent crimes you had in 2009 drop to zero.

Always Remember...

2010-12-09T11:30:00.000-08:00

...never give a monkey a gun.

Thoughts On the Death of Lennon and the Rise of Gun Control

2010-12-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

Thirty years ago yesterday (December 8, 1980), John Lennon was shot by Mark David Chapman.

The Brady Campaign's press release notes Lennon was

"One of a Million Victims of Gun Violence in Just 30 Years."

Our friend Paul also notes:

"While Lennon’s abilities as a musician and lyricist were rare, his status as a gun violence victim is not. Way too many people have been killed with guns in America."

and continues:

"But more needs to be done to make our society a safer place, including closing the gun show loophole and the terror gap, which make it easy for dangerous people to get lethal weapons"

That got me thinking.

According to the anti-gunners, the U.S. is rife with gun violence compared to other industrialized nations. If so, why is it that the bulk of the anti-gun movement has taken place over the last 40 years? Why not earlier?

Look at the dates.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed in the wake of the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) was founded in 1974, along with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH). (As we know, HCI later becomes the Brady Campaign in 2001; NCBH is renamed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in 1990).

Lennon is shot in 1980.

In 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. tries to assassinate Reagan.

Within the last 40 years.

Do we have anything earlier?

Sure.

The Sullivan Act of 1911, passed in New York. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

But if we also look back at history, we see assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents well before 1934.

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. Why didn't groups spring up and call for strict regulation of firearms then? How could they allow someone like Booth to get his hands on a gun, a mayhem-producing .44 caliber derringer no less?

And some 30 years earlier, a flintlock-wielding assassin tried to kill Andrew Jackson but failed. Why weren't folks up in arms about those deadly flintlock pistols?

And look at all those shootings in the Old West. Why weren't there gun control laws in place to prevent that bloodshed?

So tell me: why only in the last 40 years? If gun violence has been an ongoing epidemic for our country, wouldn't you think something would've been done back when it first began, back when an unemployed house painter named Richard Lawrence pulled a pair of pistols and fired on then-President Andrew Jackson?

SacBee Sees Some Sense

2010-12-08T06:00:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's editorial at the Sacramento Bee on Amtrak's updated firearms policy gets it right.

For law-abiding travelers who want to transport their guns legally, the new rules are fair and reasonable, but let's be real here – they are no deterrent to determined criminals.

Exactly right. Determined criminals will still bring a gun onto the train and shoot people. Like the deadly "Gun Free Zone," laws will never deter a criminal bent on destruction.

Glad to see someone in the media is paying attention and acknowledging reality.

Helmke Resorts to Scaremongering and Half-Truths: Part One

2010-12-06T06:00:00.000-08:00

We briefly mentioned this post in an earlier entry but focused on another aspect.

This time, we're going to examine the article itself. This will likely be a nice long post so we'll break it up into sections.

Good Ol' Paul resorts to scare tactics and half-truths in order to get his point across. That point, of course, is total civilian disarmament. In this section, we're going to look at the scare tactics employed.

Paul writes:

There the NRA goes again -- siding with the common gang member and drug dealer who wants to use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities.

Guilt by association. Right off the bat, Paul wants the reader to associate the NRA with criminals by saying they side with gang members and drug dealers.

Notice he uses the word "again." This suggests that the NRA does this all the time. That is, side with gang members and drug dealers.

The implication here is: the NRA should be lumped in the same definition as the criminal.

Paul follows this opening paragraph with this photograph

Notice: this photograph immediately follows the phrase "use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities."

The idea here is to give a visual to the term "semi-automatic weapon." As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

The visual is further reinforced with the caption identifying this object as a "military-style assault weapon."

Also in that caption is the scare tactic: "these guns are back" and "on our streets." Close proximity to the opening paragraph starts the reader thinking and associating this way: NRA = gang members = drug dealers = semi-automatic weapon = military-style assault rifle = on our streets.

A mental red flag goes up.

And Paul capitalizes on that red flag with the next paragraph:

Too bad about the bloody, injured, paralyzed, and door-knob-dead bodies. Too bad about the little children who can't play outdoors, or the innocent teens who can't walk their streets alone, for fear of being shot by stray bullets from gang-bangers wielding assault weapons. Too bad about the mamas and the papas who can't afford to live in neighborhoods that aren't flooded with illegal guns, like those the NRA bosses inhabit. Too bad about the schoolchildren, teachers, and workers who are victims of the mentally unstable who easily can get their rapid-fire killing machines from so-called private sellers at gun shows.

The intent in this paragraph is to evoke emotion. Tug at the heart strings. It's meant to work in the exact same way as those commercials about adopting a child in a third world country. They show you pictures of children with sad, unkempt faces living in deplorable poverty, flies and gnats swarming around them."How horrible!" you think.

Same thing here.

Blood and death caused by guns. Note the images. "bloody, injured, paralyzed, door-knob-dead bodies." "little children" and "innocent teens." "fear of being shot by stray bullets." "illegal guns" and "rapid-fire killing machines."

Also notice the associations within that paragraph: "gang-bangers" with "assault weapons." "illegal guns" with "NRA bosses." "rapid-fire killing machines" with "private sellers at gun shows." He wants you to connect illegal guns with the NRA, and "rapid-fire killing machines" with gun shows.

Evoke emotion.

But it's not meant to tug at the heartstrings.

No.

The intended emotion is fear.

Yes. Paul wants to scare you. He wants you deathly afraid.

Follow the flow of associations: NRA = gang members = drug dealers = semi-automatic weapon = military-style assault weapon = on the streets = blood and death.

In an effort to find a shortcut, the reader will simply begin with "NRA" and associate the last image: "blood and death."

In the next paragraph, Paul makes a further association:

Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home. (Wink. Wink.)

The "Thou shalt not" attempts to mimic the language of the Second Amendment.

Note that "law-abiding" is in quotes, the inference being it's a questionable or not necessarily true term.

He invokes the AK-47 which immediately brings to mind the pop culture image of gang-bangers toting said weapons. Such an image is meant to scare you.

Paul wants you to associate the "law abiding" citizen with the gang-banger (both want AK-47s) and the Second Amendment as the primary excuse for having such a weapon.

Three paragraphs in and already Paul has bombarded us with images of death associated with guns, gangs, and the NRA.

And we haven't even gotten to Paul's main point!

In our next post, we'll look at the half-truths Paul uses.

John Lott: Assault Weapons and the Truth

2010-12-03T06:30:00.000-08:00

Over at National Review Online, John Lott outlines why Andrew Traver is a bad choice for the ATF and reminds readers the truth about "assault weapons."

Paul Helmke: Bigot

2010-12-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

Here's a great example of the Gun Control Crowd's unabashed bigotry.

Like how Helmke equates gun owners with criminals? It's right there in the first sentence:

There the NRA goes again -- siding with the common gang member and drug dealer who wants to use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities.

Followed immediately by a scary picture of an UZI.

You know the logic behind it, right?

Here goes:

Criminals use guns. If you have a gun, you must be a criminal.

Gun owners have guns. Therefore, they are criminals.

ZOMG!

Oh--except for cops and the military. They can have guns but they're not criminals because we said so.

Yeah.

I don't understand the logic either.

Gun Buyback Follies in Stockton, CA

2010-12-02T06:30:00.000-08:00

A gun buyback is scheduled for Saturday December 4th.

Yet another "feel good" event for anti-gunners despite evidence showing they don't work.

From the report Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders, Guide No.23 (2003), by Anthony A. Braga, page 3 (scroll down to #17, near the bottom of the page)

Unfortunately, evaluations have shown that gun buyback programs have no observable effect on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They do not directly target guns that are highly likely to be used in violence, and the characteristics of the guns collected reveal little overlap between crime guns and buyback guns.

Yup.

Doesn't do a damn thing, likely wastes taxpayer monies, but sure feels good, doesn't it.

Logic Train Wreck

2010-12-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

Over on Common Gunsense, japete offers her thoughts on why 18-year-olds should not be allowed to purchase guns.

She makes the comparison to denying access to alcohol:

In most states, 18 year olds are denied legal access to alcohol for good reasons. Alcohol causes enough problems for older adults. Why make it easy for younger adults to use and abuse alcohol and drugs? Some would like to change this age. I am not sure what I think about this one. Most realize that these young people go off to college where there are legal drinkers and it's hard to keep the underage drinkers from gaining access.

So the very idea of 18 year olds in high school legally carrying guns around in public and/or being able to legally purchase is absolutely insane....Let's combine the known risky tendencies of teen-agers with the idea of them also legally carrying guns in our restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and other places where young adults gather, and we have a recipe for trouble. As [a New York Times] editorial notes, young people already are responsible for a good number of illegal gun crimes and murders. Why make it even easier for potential shootings?

Sounds reasonable, right?

Come a little closer.

Look at that first paragraph. She says that in most states, 18-year-olds can't buy alcohol then admits

...these young people go off to college...and it's hard to keep the underage drinkers from gaining access.

Then in the next paragraph she says it's insane to think of 18-year-olds purchasing and legally carrying guns.

Wait wait wait wait.

It's hard to keep underage drinkers from getting access to alcohol when they go off to college but if we pass a law barring guns from them, then it won't be hard to prevent their access to guns?

Hear that crash?

That's the Logic Train derailing.

No Gun Deaths, Therefore No Anti-Gun Uproar

2010-12-01T10:00:00.000-08:00

I'm surprised at all the Anti-Gunners.

So far, they haven't made a ruckus over the student who held his classmates hostage then turn the gun on himself.

I guess Paul Helmke and his fellow antis only get into a tizzy when many people die.

But y'see, this kid commited a crime by bringing a gun into a Gun Free Zone. A school. Broke the law.

According to the anti-gunners, they don't want this to happen. They don't want criminals getting their hands on guns and going into a school to kill young people.

But clearly since there were no deaths, it doesn't matter.

I have one word.

Hypocrites.

VPC on MI Licensee Suicide Rates: A Follow-up

2010-12-01T06:01:00.000-08:00

Now, if the VPC really wanted to compare the suicide rates among handgun licensees, it would be per 100,000 handgun licensees.

Remember: keep the same units.

Per the data, we have 164,793 licensees in 2007. Of those, 29 committed suicide.

Which means there were 164,764 who did not commit suicide.

The suicide rate, after doing the math, comes to 17.59 per 100,000 (17.6 if we round up).

The non-suicide rate, after doing the math, comes to 99,982.4 per 100,000.

And there we have it.

Suicide rate for licensees: 17.6 per 100,000 licensees

Non-suicide rate for licensees: 99,982.4 per 100,000 licensees

But you and I know the VPC won't stand for numbers like that.

No.

Showing 17.6 licensee suicides per 100,000 versus 11.3 suicides per 100,000 looks better.

More shocking. More menacing.

And makes better news.

And that's what counts, right? Making news.

Not public safety. Not preventing or even stopping violence.

Nope.

Making news.

So once again: You're still trusting them because....?

VPC Misleads on MI Concealed Handgun Licensee Suicide Rates

2010-12-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

Our friends over at the VPC make the claim:

Michigan concealed handgun license holders commit suicide at a rate higher than the general Michigan population

Here's their data which "proves" that claim:

According to information from the Michigan State Police, for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, 29 of Michigan’s 164,793 concealed handgun license holders took their own lives for a concealed handgun license holder suicide rate of 17.6 per 100,000 license holders.

[...]

In comparison, in 2007 Michigan’s suicide rate for the general population was 11.3 per 100,000.

Sounds reasonable, right? 17.6 is greater than 11.3, therefore it follows--

Wait one.

Go back to the data and look again.

Do you see it?

Let me show you.

The 11.3 is the rate per general population. The 17.6 is the rate per license holders.

See what the VPC is doing? They're trying to mislead you by comparing two different units. That's like saying 3 feet of wood is far better than a mere 1 kilogram of wood.

If we really want to compare the suicide rate, don't we need to use the same units? In this case, rate per 100,000 persons in the general population.

Let's do just that.

From the above information, we have 29 suicides by licensees in 2007. The 2007 population of Michigan was 10,050,847. Doing the math gives us a rate per 100,000 of 0.29 licensee suicides.

Let's further assume that the general suicide rate of 11.3 is for all suicides. Data here gives the total suicides in Michigan as 1,131 which corresponds to the above rate of 11.3 per 100,000. If that's the total, then we need to remove the 29 licensee suicides in order to find the number of non-licensee suicides.

Subtracting 29 from 1,131 gives us 1,102. Again, doing the math gives us a rate of 10.96 per 100,000.

So here we have the true numbers. In 2007, Michigan had a suicide rate of 0.29 handgun licensees per 100,000. Of the remaining general population that includes non-handgun licensees, Michigan had a suicide rate of 10.96 per 100,000.

Big difference.

And there you have it, folks.

The VPC uses misleading data in order to further their cause.

And you still trust them because....?

ETA: Follow-up post here.

The Mindset Behind Gun Control

2010-11-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

I was visiting Sebastian's place the other day and noticed the following in the comments of this post.

Sebastian writes:

Gun control advocates are skeptical such a gun owner exists, since it is well known your average person is incapable of acting with such restraint when in the presence of firearms.

To which Gun Control Advocate mikeb302000 comments:

we don’t think anything of the kind. We realize that the majority of you gun owners are responsible. We’re always talking about the smaller percentage who are not, about whom something should be done.

Now, when I read that, I thought: "Huh. Whadda ya know. Could it be he's saying something right for a change? Could it be he's acquired some sense?"

Not really.

Because three comments later, mikeb302000 says:

The "good ones" are in the majority. And being good citizens they wouldn’t mind being inconvenienced for the Greater Good.

And further down, we really see where he's going with this:

That doesn’t mean I think every one of you is irresponsible and dangerous. No. You’re just partly responsible for the gun violence that is made possible by the policies you support.

And there you have it, folks.

This is what they really think of us.

This is the mindset that fuels the Gun Control Crowd.

It's not about preventing gun violence. It's not about protecting the children or the safety of society.

No. It's because they equate us with criminals.

Wisconsin Gunman Defeated By Gun Free Zone...Not

2010-11-30T05:50:00.000-08:00

Following this story, I'm sure we'll soon hear commentary from the Gun Control Crowd on how this could've been avoided by more stringent gun laws.

What we probably won't hear from them is the fact that this 15-year-old brought two guns into a Gun Free Zone.

But how can that be? Aren't Gun Free Zones supposed to magically prevent such things?

Well, Gun Control Folks? Got an answer to that?

This Can't Happen in California

2010-11-29T18:00:00.000-08:00

Two members of a Sacramento family--one of them a 10-year-old boy--were shot by two men at a Sacramento shopping center on Friday the 26th of November.

But that can't happen here in California. See, we learned from the Brady Bunch that California rates the highest in their state scorecards for having the toughest gun laws EVAH.

So that news story is probably a lie.

Right, Brady Campaign?

Anti-Gunners Are Childish

2010-11-29T06:00:00.000-08:00

Contra Costa Open Carry and the Responsible Citizens of California held a meet up this past Saturday at a local burger place in Pleasant Hill, CA. Members of the local Brady Bunch came to protest.

The Brady Bunch had about 10 or so folks.

The open carry folks had at least three times that number.

The one thing that stood out in my mind about that meet up was this incident: A gentleman came in carrying a sign that read: "Gun control is for cowards and fools." He went to stand with the Brady Bunch. One of the Brady folks then tried to cover up his sign with one they had brought. Our guy moved down the row to get away from her. She followed and tried to cover up his sign yet again. He moved again. She followed again. Finally, since he topped her by at least several inches, he simply held the sign over her head where she couldn't cover it.

I thought to myself: "Brady Bunch lady, are you serious? You're trying to cover his sign? What, are you five years old?"

And here's a choice quote on this weekend's meet up:

"They say that they are law abiding citizens but there's no way of knowing that. There's no accountability for this group," said Karen Arntzen of the California Brady Campaign.

I believe she just called all open carry practitioners "criminals".

The Brady Bunch's New Tactic

2010-10-29T09:30:00.000-07:00

Rustmeister points to Kaveman's recent post and I agree: the tactic makes sense to me.

Now the question to all of us: what are we going to do about it?

Yes, Kaveman advises:

we should start cataloging EVERYTHING Colin says now since those words may come in quite handy in the near future.

But beyond that, what else do we need to do to counter their move?

When Anti-Gunners Resort to Name Calling

2010-10-28T08:50:00.000-07:00

Says this anti-gun blogger:

I love sharing my thoughts about guns, gun violence, and gun policy. Without fail my blog gets trolled by gun loons

Gun loons?

Really?

This is "reasonable conversation"?

You claim

I welcome reasonable conversation but if you're going to be an asshole and attack me personally I'm going to close this comment thread

then start off your post by talking about "gun loons"?

And that's not being an asshole yourself and attacking us personally?

Wow.

You just fall back to name calling and think you hold the moral high ground.

Clearly you have no desire to engage in anything resembling "reasonable conversation."

Madam, you waste our time.

Colin Goddard Denies Reality

2010-10-27T13:15:00.000-07:00

Colin Goddard wrote to me. He said:

"Crazy people are going to do crazy things, Colin, and there is nothing you can do about it."

I've heard that statement often since being shot four times at Virginia Tech...

...but I reject that premise, and I say we can and must do better.

Ah. So Colin denies reality. He rejects the premise that "crazy people are going to do crazy things." So that tells me he denies the reality that crazy people exist in this world and said crazy people will likely do crazy things.

Like shoot students in a university classroom.

Colin goes on:

I was on the Oprah show talking about the shooting and how my life has changed since April 16, 2007. I told her we do not need to accept gun violence in our communities.

I was not prepared, however, for what the opposition had to say only minutes after the show aired:

"Colin Goddard should be kicked in the **** for getting in bed with [the Brady Campaign]. He almost died because he was helpless ... and now, he's working to make more of us helpless."

Helpless — no way!

Helpless is defined as:

1. unable to help oneself; weak or dependent

2. deprived of strength or power; powerless; incapacitated

Yes, Colin. You were helpless. You were powerless, unable to defend yourself from Seung-Hui Cho. That made you helpless.

Care to show me otherwise?

Wait. You can't.

You got shot.

And now you want to show me how I can end up like you? Shot?

Like hell you will.

More ChicagoFail

2010-07-19T08:00:00.000-07:00

Chi-Town police superintendent Jody Weiss on violent criminals:

little could be done to prevent such attacks by people with little regard for human life.

"There's really no level of security you can put up that will prevent a person like that from attacking someone," he said.

So Chicago will simply continue to let law-abiding citizens become victims with no way of defending themselves.

This, Dear Readers, is call lunacy.

(h/t: Thirdpower)

VPC: Ignorant Public = Our Prime Target

2010-07-19T04:00:00.000-07:00

In the VPC's "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," the report says this about the public and assault weapons:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Look at that again, Dear Reader.

You are absolutely correct.

They're capitalizing on your ignorance of the subject.

The implicaton: "The public is too stupid to know the difference. Let's use that."

And you want to trust them?

I'd think again.

Assault Weapons = Scary!

2010-07-12T04:00:00.000-07:00

Here's a great example of how the Brady Bunch uses scare tactics and the propaganda technique of transfer to push their agenda.

Follow along, Dear Reader, and I will illuminate you...

In the FAQs accompanying their report "Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem," they answer the question "What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?" and note

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware.

Observe the language: "look scary and are scary because".

The implication: looking scary = is scary

"Look scary" elicits an emotional reaction.

Emotion. Not fact.

Scare tactic.

They then follow with a list of the "combat hardware" and, if you'll look closely, they add language meant to scare you:

"continously fire dozen of rounds without reloading"
"maximum concealability and mobility in close combat"
"shoot many rounds"
"rapid fire"
"allows an assassin to shoot without making noise"
"accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle"

This is also prime example of the propaganda technique known as transfer or association. Notice that they include the terms "rapid fire" and "shoot many rounds" and associate those terms to semi-automatic assault weapon.

Implication: semi-automatic assault weapons are rapid fire and can shoot many rounds.

The next question asks for the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. The give the correct answer but continue to imply that semi-automatic weapons = automatic weapon.

Observe:

When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Operative word here is UZI, and the thought process of the average person--that means you, Dear Reader--reading this goes, as follows:

Semi-automatic. UZI. We've seen UZIs on TV. They fire like machineguns. Therfore an UZI must be a semi-automatic because they're using it as an example so that means semi-automatic weapons fire just like a machinegun!

Victory. They've duped the reader.

They've duped you.

NRA Arming Felons! ZOMG!

2010-07-05T04:00:00.000-07:00

Today we look at a VPC report titled "Guns for Felons: How the NRA Works to Rearm Criminals."

Let's cut to the chase.

Do they (i.e., the NRA) rearm felons?

No.

The report is nothing but the classic case of fitting evidence to achieve a particular result and discarding evidence that doesn't fit.

Says the report:

The NRA has worked to expand and protect this guns-for-felons program that has rearmed thousands of convicted—and often violent—felons.

But it gives no citation for the claim of "thousands."

Furthermore, there is no source given to show that the NRA has actually rearmed criminals.

Unless one assumes the NRA has rearmed criminals simply by supporting certain pieces of legislation.

Look closely. There's a scare tactic employed here.

Rearmed felon = felon who will shoot and kill and cause gun-related mayhem.

Unfortunately, none of the examples provided actually show an armed felon, i.e. one who will shoot and kill and cause gun-related mayhem.

Let's face it. The report is a sham.

Need more examples?

Okay. Here's another one.

Under the sub-heading "Examples of Felons Granted 'Relief' in 1989 for Convictions that Included the Use of Firearms or Violations of Gun Laws" we get a list of four examples, starting with one that reads: "Firearms Violation–Illegal Sale of an NFA Weapon, Machine Gun."

Why start with that one?

Because it's scary. Look. It says "Machine Gun."

But if you actually read the example you'll find the following:

In his recommendation the investigating agent noted, "During this investigation, the law enforcement community and a few neighbors expressed great concern [regarding Williams'] being granted 'relief,' however, no documentable reasons for denying him his 'relief' were produced. Because of this lack of documentation, I have no choice but to recommend that [he be] granted 'relief.' "

Read that again.

If you scan back, you'll notice the sub-heading is in bold letters, and the heading of the first example is underlined. That's so you'll look only there and disregard the "large block of text, must be boring to read, probably just supports the bolded sub-heading and the heading of the example."

Subtle misdirection.

Here's another.

The report says the VPC obtained

100 randomly selected files of felons granted "relief." Among those 100 cases were: five convictions for felony sexual assault; 11 burglary convictions; 13 convictions for distribution of narcotics; and, four homicide convictions. In fact, of the 100 sample cases, one third involved either violent crimes (16 percent) or drug-related crimes (17 percent).[Italics theirs]

Tallying the list given above, we get 33 cases that involved either violent or drug-related crimes. 33 percent, as mentioned.

Which means that 67 cases of felons granted "relief" did not involve either violent or drug-related crimes.

Notice how they conveniently leave that bit out.

Notice in this example how they italicized the bit about one-third of the sample cases. It's meant to draw your attention to that and to that alone and gives it the air of importance and authority.

But it's just lying with statistics.

Yup. Total sham.

People Will Die Because of Court Decision

2010-06-28T11:00:00.000-07:00

From the VPC:

"People will die because of this decision...."

Yes.

People will die.

But it will be the predators who will die.