Friday, May 26, 2006

Time Out

Well, I'm off on vacatio for a week, so there won't be much (if any) action for a while.

If you read regularly or find the blog interesting so far, it'd be cool if you'd just drop a comment in this post to say hi.


Thursday, May 25, 2006

Banning "Assault Weapons" vs Racial Profiling

Quick, which is good and which is bad? Both good? Both bad? Make up your mind and read on...

Let's do a side by side, issue by issue comparison of the two practices, both of which are by their nature discriminatory. It's the merits of the discrimination that I'd like to examine, as well as the effectiveness at bringing about the desired outcome.

In both circumstances, we're talking about treating one class of items/individuals differently than another class. What criteria are used to place an item/individual in its class? In the case of racial profiling, physical appearance is the only information available to one who is doing the profiling. I suppose that in some instances speech patterns could also be used, but I think it's safe to say we're talking about classifying people based on how they look. Additionally, I suppose that if you knew the person's name, that could be used to profile him or her. It is much the same with so-called "assault weapons". The former federal law, as well as several current state laws classify guns as assault weapons either based specifically on their make and model, or on cosmetic appearance. The only way to determine whether or not a rifle is an assault weapon or not (if its name isn't on the list) is to check for a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

  • A "pistol grip "
  • A "flash hider" (muzzle device used to prevent damage to eyes when fired in darkness, not rendering the shooter invisible at night)
  • A "bayonet lug" (used for the attachment of a fixed blade knife under the barrel)

You could of course make a similar list of "features" that might (to you) help classify a person into a particular ethnic group.

But why go to the work of doing all this "classification"? That question gets more to the heart of the matter. Let's say that in both cases, the goal is to reduce or prevent crime. These are two methods of attempting to reach that goal.

The method's effectiveness is directly related to how well the classification criteria demonstrate a causal (not casual) relationship to the crime that is being "prevented". To put it another way, let's look at how well the "features lists" correlate to the actual perpetrators of the crimes.

The first and most obvious problem encountered with banning assault weapons (or any other "class" of firearms) is that firearms are not the perpetrators of the crimes. If firearms don't commit crime, does it make any sense to restrict them? Can it be demonstrated that restricting any kind of guns leads to a reduction of crime (which is the point, right)?

Anti-gunners won't let rational thought get in the way of a good plan though, so let's press on and evaluate the effectiveness of classifying and treating differently certain groups based on the identified superficial features.

I'm going to tread lightly here, so please do your best to not be offended. I'll start with racial profiling. IF it could be shown that crime was disproportionately often a result of black, white, arabic, or asian criminals, would it make sense to focus investigative efforts on that group of people? It at least makes sense on surface. If 3/4 of a crime is perpetrated by members of group X, and group X only represents 1/4 of the population, it would make sense to focus investigative efforts on members of group X when attempting to solve or prevent that crime. It at least makes logical sense, whether or not you believe it to be constitutional.

On the other hand, classifying and restricting firearms by their cosmetic features doesn't make any sense at all. "Hold it right there! The assault weapons ban applied to weapons of warfare. It wasn't about how the gun looked!" I beg do differ, and would happily lay that little lie to rest:

  • Cosmetic/ergonomic feature #1: Pistol Grip - Antis will contend that a pistol grip allows the gunman lawful firearm owner to "spray from the hip". Anyone who takes 10 seconds to think about this would realize the absurdity of the claim. Stand up. Hold your right arm at your side, so that your hand is near your hip. Now give a "thumbs-up" while leaving your arm straight. Kinda hard, huh? That's what you'd have to do to hold a pistol gripped rifle at your waist and point it ahead of you. Now do the same thing, except point your thumb straight ahead. Lots easier, right? That's how you'd hold a conventionally-stocked rifle or shotgun. All of this assumes that your goal is to find a gun that you can "spray from the hip". Why would anyone ever want to do that? Contrary to Hollywood dogma, spraying wildly from the hip will not magically kill everything in a 180 degree arc in front of you. Controlled, aimed fire is effective. Wild lead spraying is not.
  • Cosmetic/ergonomic feature #2: "Flash Hider" - Once again, the antis would like to mislead you. They'd have you believe a "flash hider" makes a firearm fire invisibly at night. Not so. It does keep from disabling the eyesight of the shooter when firing at night, but the muzzle flash is still quite (QUITE) visible to onlookers.
  • Cosmetic/ergonomic feature #2: "Bayonet Lug" - This one is just silly. How many bayonet slayings have you ever heard of? We need a law against guns with this feature?

So as you can see, classifying guns based on these features has nothing to do with their likelihood of or effectiveness at being used in crime. So-called "assault weapons" function identically to common hunting rifles and other firearms not covered by the ban because they don't "look menacing" or couldn't pass as "military-style".

The reason I brought this whole thing up is that amazingly there are people who would contend that racial profiling is abhorrent and yet support restrictions on the law-abiding such as the "assault weapons" ban.

I merely wanted to point out that one is at least logically (not necessarily morally or constitutionally) defensible, while the other is utterly absurd.

Sex offender with gun found at school

"A 57-year-old sex offender who had not re-registered with the sex-offender registry was found on school property Tuesday with a gun stuck in his waistband, police said."

"Patton was charged with being a sex offender on school property, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and failing to re-register with the sex offender registry, a spokeswoman for the Cook County state's attorney's office said."

"He was convicted in 1977 in Cook County Circuit Court of raping a victim under the age of 18 and was released from prison in 2002"

Add this to the list of stories that meet the following criteria:
  • Person commits a crime
  • Person is apprehended, charged, and convicted
  • Person serves some/little/no time and is released
  • Person commits more crimes
  • The public cries for more laws to keep bad things from happening instead of crying for criminals to be kept out of society

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

What about bystanders?

There is an argument used by the antis against things like concealed carry and "stand your ground" legislation. They want to know, "What about innocent bystanders? You can't have any Joe on the street just go guns-a-blazin'! People will be hurt!"

Well, here we have a case of one of Washington's finest firing on (and missing) an alleged assailant. Not only did he miss, but the bullet ended up in a child's bedroom of a nearby house. Apparently they're the only ones professional enough...

"A .40-caliber bullet that Forks police fired early Sunday at a man they said charged them instead broke a 5-year-old boy's bedroom window about a block away and landed near the child's toy box."

What do you suppose would have happened to the officer had the bullet actually struck an innocent child? Better yet, what do you think gun-control advocates would want to happen to him? Certainly the answer would be, "Nothing." Now what do you suppose the same people would want to happen to you or I if a bystander were struck by a "stray bullet" fired in self-defense? I'll tell you: They'd want you treated more harshly than the one you were defending yourself from.

Intruder shot by teen with two guns

It looks like Jeff at Alphecca already covered this, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of anyone who might read my blog but not his (Anyone? Bueller?)

The rundown:
  • Some guy bangs on the door in the middle of the night.
  • Mom goes to the door and opens it (!?!)
  • Guy tries to force his way in but mom shuts the door.
  • Bad guy ("Jumper") tries to break down the door with his bicycle.
  • Mom gets hysterical.
  • Jarvis (15) hears mom and cowboys up (dual pistols).
  • Jumper finally busts in and Jarvis caps him.
  • Jarvis thinks he scared him away, and the cops find him "lying on the ground a few houses away, shot multiple times and bleeding from his wounds"
  • ''Preliminary investigation suggests it was a justifiable shooting, and the 15-year-old won't be charged''

The gun-haters would have us all cowering in a closet calling 911 while Jumper has his way with our families and our property. Meanwhile the police would respond, if they feel like it, and when they get around to it. In this case they'd likely have been more of a clean-up crew.

I found it interesting that in the article there was no mention of the guns being "registered" or anyone in the household being "licensed".

All in all, a good story. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Get the word out!

I know this isn't a blockbuster blog, but those who read probably also read and maybe write blogs that are. Anyone who is an IL resident ought to be especially interested in this:

In Illinois, law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense. Every other state allows it to some extent, but Illinois politicians deny that basic human right to their constituents. We may lawfully carry, however, so long as the firearm is unloaded, enclosed in a case, and we hold a valid “firearm owner identification (FOID) card”. This allows us to be seconds away from safety, and is without a doubt the best way to lawfully stay safe in Illinois. Countless people throughout the state exercise this severely-infringed right to keep and bear arms.My name is Shaun Kranish, and I’m a law-abiding citizen as well as the founder of, a gun rights group in Illinois. I am one of the citizens that exercise the right to self-defense within the letter of the law. I used to “fanny-pack,” like so many others, and did so on a daily basis. This is the account of my wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

On the evening of Friday, May 12th, 2006, I had been shopping with my girlfriend at a local mall. For about three and a half hours we strolled in and out of stores, picked out and purchased cards and gifts, and ate at the food court. While we were peacefully walking to the mall exit, we happened to pass by two security guards. They followed and stopped us and then questioned me about the buckled case I wore on my side. They wanted to know what I had inside of it, and I told them it was none of there business and I did not approve of being searched because my personal belongings were private. Despite my protest, the private guards told me to put my hands up and proceeded to forcibly and publicly search me without permission.

After unbuckling and opening my case, they discovered that I was carrying an unloaded gun as Illinois law clearly allows, then handcuffed and detained me on the spot. They called the local police as they drug me away to a mall “substation,” handcuffed, for everyone to see. As they did, I informed them that I was abiding by the law and implored them to read a copy of the statute along with extra information I carried with me at all times in order to assist and educate officers just in case a situation like this arose.

What happened next could only be described as the horror of being falsely arrested and charged for a crime that I did not commit. I spent two hours handcuffed to a bench in a tiny "holding room" at the mall as two or three security guards along with five or six police officers examined and discussed my letter, and eventually decided to deliberately ignore it and falsely charge me with Unlawful Use of a Weapon, a criminal offense under Illinois statute, in order to cover up and justify my false arrest and search. My girlfriend was harassed, man-handled, searched without cause, and questioned by the police while I was locked and isolated in the next room, unable to do a thing but listen helplessly and try to shout loud enough to be heard.

After some time, while I still remained handcuffed and confined and deprived of the ability to communicate with anyone, including my attorney, my girlfriend was allowed to leave. I was then carted away to the Winnebago County Jail for my first visit ever. There I was questioned endlessly and searched for the fifth time. The officers behind the glass, the transport officer filing out the transfer papers, and the officers behind me all knew that I wanted to post bond. I had already told them which debit card to use for the payment. This search with a metal detector and thorough search by hand of my body didn’t satisfy one of the officers though. He wanted to do a strip search, and no one else protested to protect me.

Warning: The next part can be considered graphically descriptive and contains quotations of what may be considered offensive language. Please use discretion especially if there are young people reading.

Click Here to continue with the full account (graphic) or Click Here for a version safe for all ages

I'll be supporting the cause by becoming a member.

Pheonix's Phinest

E. David Quammen of Phoenix, AZ has a little run-in with the PO-lice:

An officer shined a light on me and then pulled up. Tells me to keep my hands where he can see them. No problem. Then he tells me 'I need for you to give me your gun'. And I said no, you don't, I've got Rights. He stated 'My safety comes first.' In turn I said, think you have that backwards. I'm the citizen and you are the servant. He then says "I don't need a civics lesson, are you going to comply or not?" I then say I have a Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms, you are a public servant and have no right to disarm me. I've presented no threat to you and you are not justified to disarm me. He then calls in the 'goon' squad.

What would you have done?

I think David's actions were appropriate and got the point across. What worries him (and me) is the apparent prevalence of such a superior attitude by our supposed "public servants".

So how's that workin' for ya, Heyne?

"My wife and I, we never believed in guns," said Heyne, who has recovered physically from the three gunshot wounds he suffered. "We never bought our kids toy guns and made a point of talking to them about the danger. I never thought I would be someone who would go through this."

Who'da thunk it? Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. Neither does "not believing" in something. Not believing in defending yourself will get you killed by someone who DOES believe in using violence to get what they want. You think this thug would've shot you and your wife up and went on to pistol-whip another woman to death if you had been carrying a firearm and had been trained to use it?

Astonishingly, that's not what Mr. Heyne advocates. The rest of the article is about a "pending measure in Congress called HR 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that would repeal provisions allowing law enforcement access to trace gun ownership. " Of course, the libs say this is a bad idea, because it "would take away the power of law enforcement to find out who owns a gun."

Anything that takes away police power and reserves it for law-abiding citizens is good, in my book.

"Weiss said under his proposal, gun owners would be held responsible if the weapon is later used in a crime."

I see. Are law enforcement officers so inept that they can't track down and punish the one who actually committed a crime and instead need to use a law-abiding citizen as a whipping boy?


The New Jersey Police State

"The bills are intended to prevent gun violence, protect witnesses and bolster police powers."

That sounds great, right? Let me translate: "The bills are intended to restrict the (heretofore) lawful use of firearms, encourage snitches, and make sure police can ruin your life if you don't have all the right "papers"."

"My sense is these criminals fail to follow the law," said Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Washington Township (Morris County). "You will be with this legislation creating criminals of people who did nothing wrong."

That's right, Guy. The government has no power over the law-abiding, only the criminal. So what do they do when they want more power? Turn law-abiding people into criminals; pass so many laws that you can't help but break some, even incidentally. Then, any time a person gets a little too much advocacy publicity, the thugs can make an example out of them.

Make no mistake, everyone is a potential target. I'm willing to bet that almost everyone has broken A law. Now all they need is a reason to bring you in.

Now for the obligatory blood-dance:

"The streets are running with blood from teenagers being shot by drive-bys," Payne said. "We need to look at ways to stop guns at their source. We need to stop guns from entering our areas."

The whole article talks about how the place is terrorized by gangs, which I'm pretty sure are composed of bad people, not inanimate objects.

"None of these bills are needed. (Registered gun owners) just have more hurdles to jump through to exercise their right to self-defense."

And I'm pretty sure that that's the point.

It's for the children

the-subversive has a rant about the nanny-state and child-safety seat laws.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Should Government Provide For The Poor

This is a discussion that started in comments on another blog, Unalienable Rights, and continues in his post, "Should Government Provide For The Poor?"

The topic is obvious, and I think you can guess at my take on the issue. Here is my stance, in summary:

You mention a host of verses that support the idea that God has charged His followers with the care of the poor. I couldn’t agree more! We (as Christians) certainly DO have a moral obligation to help those who are in need (love your neighbor). What you’ll notice though, is that NONE OF THE VERSES EVER TELL YOU TO MAKE SOMEONE ELSE GIVE SACRIFICE FOR THE GOOD OF ANOTHER.

God does not tell us to force others to do good. He tells US to do good. He doesn’t want (or need) us to gang up on the “wealthy” in order to force them to give “their share” for the good of society. Yet, that is essentially what you’re advocating. You want a bunch of armed government thugs to go around forcing the “rich” to “do their part” in helping those “in need”.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Anti-gun Brainwashing

“'Jobs for Guns' campaign targets crime rate, aims to change lives"

Here's the plan:
  1. Offer 50 bucks to anyone who brings in a gun, "no questions asked".
  2. Pair the person up with a "mentor", who will guide them on a path to prosperity and lolipops.
  3. Take the message to the schools, and let all the kiddies know how bad guns (and anyone who uses them) are.
  4. Offer prizes for any kiddies who will pwomise to "stay away from guns".

Sounds foolproof to me. I think the crime rate in Jacksonville will be drying up any minute now.

That's one more reason I won't be submitting my children to the Socialist State Brainwashing System, aka public education.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

You don't need to be THAT free...

It's time for the freedom lovers of the country to wake up. When the antis make a statement like this:

A good first step would be to enact a state law limiting handgun purchases to one a month per buyer. Here's a question: Shouldn't 12 handguns be enough for a uburban or rural family to fend off a potential attacker?

we need to see it for what it is. It's a blatant attempt to take away (even a little bit) of your freedom. What they're really saying is, "You don't really need that much freedom".

See The War On Guns for more on "first steps".

Monday, May 15, 2006

You can't treat a cop like a regular citizen!!

But you have to wonder about a proposal by a state judicial security committee to make police officers turn their guns over to the sheriff's office when visiting the courthouse. That makes no sense. We see no reason why trained police officers should not be able to keep their guns. If something unforeseen occurs, an armed officer would be an asset.

You have to wonder about any proposal to make law abiding citizens turn over their guns when visiting the courthouse. That makes no sense. I see no reason why trained citizens should not be able to keep their guns. If something unforseen occurs, an armed citizen would be an asset.

This is just sick

The necessity for international control of guns

This is a poorly written article in support of letting the UN override our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

You need to be aware that this is going on and listen for talk of it in our own US Congress.

Felon's gun possession raises concerns

When gun control doesn't work, it's time for more gun control. Here are the highlights:

Officers shot a convicted murderer Saturday night after he took aim at authorities following a two-hour standoff. He had a shotgun and two handguns on him, even though convicted felons aren't allowed to carry guns. Gun control advocates say the case has implications for tighter controls on illegal trafficking.

What??? Didn't he know it was illegal to be in possession of a firearm? I guess he did:

Peters' rap sheet includes 23 convictions, starting with a murder in the 1970s. Since then, he'd been back to prison for two more decade-long sentences -- for drugs, a felony assault, and repeated gun possession.

So let me get this straight. This guy has been convicted of TWENTY-THREE crimes, and has been released to menace the public over and over. The courts had him in their grasp, and decided to let him go. They even knew he was illegally obtaining guns, and yet still allowed him to roam freely.

Now when he commits another crime, again with a gun, the response is that we need more restrictions on law-abiding citizens to try to prevent him from having access to guns? Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Let me make a different proposal: If you can't trust someone to lawfully use a gun, they belong in jail. If they're trustworthy enough to release to the public, they're trustworthy enough to own a gun.

Let me put it another way: If the convicted and released felon is the sort of person who you'd suspect might commit another crime, what makes you think that he won't be able to get a gun just because it's against the law for him to have one? If you think he's likely to commit another crime, why are you letting him out of the slammer to begin with?

If he is indeed reformed and worthy of regaining his freedom, then so be it. Whatever you decide to do with him, leave me and my freedoms out of it.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Guns don’t kill people, toddlers kill people …

This post is pretty silly, so I encourage you to drop by and post a reasonable, rational comment.

I don’t know how many times something like this has to happen before people learn their lesson. Our society is plagued by guns, yet the government does nothing to try to cure the problem.


"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper

This is from, which is a good firearm news aggregator.

Teen Brings Gun To Middle School

We've been hearing about this "epidemic" of guns at school pretty often lately. I have to be honest - I don't know what to think.

On one hand, I don't like the idea of "gun-free zones" at all (unless it's a private-property owner's decision). On the other hand, I can understand not wanting to "let" just any child of any age carry a gun at school. I also don't like the idea of "permitting" a right.

So where does that leave me? First of all, I think that adults should unhindered in their right to self-defense, except in the private property owner's situation I mentioned above. What about the kids? Personally, I think it ought to be up to the parents to decide when a child has shown enough maturity and competence to handle firearms responsibly.

Let's look at a crazy hypothetical. Let's pretend kids of any age could carry guns, even at school. They could carry openly or concealed. Teachers, administrators, and other adults could of course do the same. What are the problems?

Right away, some would say that playground fist-fights would turn into playground gunfights. Irresponsible parents could let (or just not care to know if) their kids take a gun to school and bully people around with it. Hmmm. That's no good.

What if there were a parental-permission type of system, where any person under the age of, say 16, had to show a card/slip of paper/whatever that demonstrated they have permission from their parents to be carrying? Eh, you still have the problem of irresponsible parents giving out permission willy-nilly.

I guess I come to the point of thinking that if a person isn't old/mature enough to be responsible for his own actions, he ought to be under the supervision of someone who is responsible for his actions (a parent).

The best idea I can come up with right now would be to say that if you're under the age of 18 and you're not hunting, target shooting, or traveling for one of those things, you need to have adult supervision in order to be in possession of a firearm. Basically I'm saying that a child wouldn't be allowed to carry for self-defense against other people unless they're at home. I guess people would just have to argue and compromise to come up with a reasonable age limit.

I'm certainly open to suggestions.

Idiots with guns

Long story short:
  • Guns being sold at auction
  • Unsupervised child puts a shell in a 10-gauge shotgun
  • Aforementioned Idiot picks up aforementioned 10-gauge
  • Idiot doesn't follow the 4 rules of firearm safety
  • Idiot shoots two other people
  • No one is seriously injured has many more examples of "Idiots with guns". From that site:

The purpose of Idiots with Guns is not to humiliate, but to educate. Over the years we have seen photos of people who, upon picking up a gun, just cannot resist pointing it at something they should not, with their finger on the trigger. This is usually the camera, another person, or themselves.

The Four Rules:

  1. All firearms are loaded
  2. Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target
  4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it

Give it back!

Governor Rendell is again calling for changes to Pennsylvania gun laws following the first fatal shooting of an on-duty Philadelphia police officer in a decade.

Read: Blood dance.

"What I’m going to try mostly to do is convince the legislature to let Philadelphia have the right to pass its own gun laws. We had that, when I was mayor, up until 1996 – then they took it away from us. I’d like them to give us that right back," Rendell said.

Americans used to have a lot of freedom when it came to defending ourselves and our country. We had that, when we were citizens, up until about 1934 - then they took it away from us. I'd like them to give us that right back.

PS - Looks like David mentions this story as well.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Now THAT'S a good letter

This article comes to us via Captain.

Really, I'm speechless. Read his letter to the editor.

Brady Blood Dance

I'm not going to dignify their story with a link. I'm sure you can find it if you want. Really, it's difficult to determine what actually happened because the "release" is so full of rhetoric. Here are the low points:
  • Michael W. Kennedy is allegedly mentally unstable. No facts are given.
  • He ends up in a shootout with the cops. Again, no explanation is given as to how or why.
  • The Bradies contend that he used an "assault weapon". There is no legal definition of "assault weapon" in VA.
  • "Seventy shots -- this man fired seventy shots at the police before he could be stopped," said Paul Helmke, the former Fort Wayne, Ind., mayor who will take over as Brady President on July 4th. "Somehow he was able to get the guns and the ammunition to shoot that many times at the police officers we ask to protect us. It's incredible, and it's unreasonable." - Somehow?? I guess that proves your gun control laws are ineffective, doesn't it Paul?

The rest of the article is just a bunch of blood dancing aimed at drumming up support for useless gun-control measures. I'd like to talk with anyone who takes these guys seriously.

See a "gun", freak out.

We're halfway down a dangerous road. We're at a point where when someone sees a gun, or even something that they think is a gun, they call the cops. Not only does officer friendly come to see what the estranged citizen is all upset about, but you can expect something more along the lines of an "armed response unit."

You can see how this becomes a self-perpetuating problem.

  1. Someone who is gun-ignorant (gunorant?) and not used to seeing guns, sees a gun.
  2. They follow the media prescribed protocol by freaking out and calling 911 for "help".
  3. The cops have to go with what they've been told (consider the source), and often respond in a more-than-sufficient manner (overkill?).
  4. The lawful gun owner/user perpetrator goes through all kinds of hassle over nothing.
  5. He takes note and is more careful to hide his hobby so as not to alarm the alarmists.
  6. Less people are exposed to the hobby.
  7. More people are gunorant.
  8. Repeat.

It seems to me that there are only two possible outcomes to this kind of cycle. First, if we let it continue, it will end with the prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms, firearm "replicas", paintball guns, BB-guns, et al.

The only other option is to break the cycle by reversing the gun owner's reaction in step 5. We, as responsible gun owner/operators, must take it upon ourselves to in effect market our hobby. If we fail to show the world that the shooting sports and self-defense are indeed commonplace among normal, law-abiding citizens, we will be exterminated (at least they'll try).

So, take it upon yourself to make a convert this month. Take someone out shooting who's never been. Make it your mission to make guns a cultural norm once again.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Pellet-gun sniper targets windows in homes, vehicles

I don't care what the story is about. The phrase "pellet-gun sniper" just makes me laugh.

Add this to the growing list of instances of the War on [toy] Guns.

The "Street"

Duluth police took two guns off the street Tuesday afternoon in incidents in separate parts of the city.

First, a crazy guy puts an unloaded gun to a bartender's head and then leaves. He's apprehended shortly thereafter.

Ramsay said the suspect was looking for someone else and it was unclear why he
pulled the gun. The officer said it wasn't a robbery.

Second, a man claims he was "assaulted by three people, one of whom pointed a gun at him."

So far, it doesn't sound like a very nice neighborhood. These unsavory perps ought to be caught and charged, and THEY should be taken off "the street".

But what does the article conclude?

"It's sad, but it's a reality of the times in Duluth right now," Beyer said. "We're seeing too many of these gun calls."

CCW Permit Holders - Should the Information be Made Public?

Kansas is wrestling with the issue. Actually, the article doesn't make much of a case for the disclosure of such information. It does argue the point that it could be dangerous to make the information public:

He said full disclosure would put an end to criminals wondering who might be carrying a hidden gun - eliminating "the general deterrence" of not knowing whether someone is armed.

Full disclosure would also allow anti-gun activists to publish the names and addresses of permit holders in local papers, which has happened in Ohio.

But what about other instances where we want records to be public? People make the argument about sex offender lists, etc. and many would say that of course these records should be public.

The problem is that when you "permit" a constitutional right, you run into this kind of issue. We ought to be asking ourselves why we're trying to enact legislation that puts a licensing procedure on our freedoms. In Kansas, they've asked to be licensed, and now they're getting what they asked for: State control of who can and who can't exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms.

A problem I wish I had

In Alabama, Republicans have to choose between someone who's been endorsed by the NRA and someone who's been endorsed by GOA in the gubernatorial primary.

Pratt said Riley and Moore have good records on supporting the right to bear arms, but the organization has to look at which candidate will fight and which will be passive.

Moore is the one endorsed by GOA.

When asked what guns he owns, Moore said, "The more appropriate question is what kinds of gun do I not own?"

I like him already.

The Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va., counts 300,000 members nationwide and considers the NRA too moderate.

That's why I'm a member, and you ought to consider it as well. For the most aggressive freedom fighting, I highly recommend Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO).

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Like you and me, only better

What a day of good fortune it is! The media is making this too easy. Observe these two stories:

The first story is pretty self-explanatory. Guy has gun in house. Kid finds gun. Kid shoots gun and kills himself. Guy gets a “4-year felony” charge.

The second story may have some skeletons in the closet, but at the very least, an officer is exonerated when a girl is shot with the officer’s gun in the officer’s car. The police say she killed herself (which is in doubt), but even if that’s true, how did she gain control of the officer’s weapon?

You see the contrast between the two stories. Regular guys are responsible for the lack of secure storage and eventual misuse of their firearms, while the boys in blue apparently are not. I guess it’s true: They’re like me and you, only better.

Monday, May 08, 2006

The War on [toy] Guns

Have you noticed all of the buzz about so-called "replica" guns lately? I think I've seen a dozen stories in the last week about someone getting in trouble with Airsoft or BB-guns. Here are a few:
I think it's important for us to pay attention any time the big media starts on a trend like this. It's important because they shape public opinion, which in turn drives ratings and eventually pushes for even more reporting on the subject. You know what happens every time the public gets really riled up about something. Invariably someone decides "something must be done"about this "alarming trend" (which is really a trend in reporting, not necessarily a trend in actual events). For instance; do you remember all of the "prison escape" stories we heard the weeks following the debut of the show "Prison Break?"

The danger isn't the reporting itself (which is annoying) or even the shift in public opinion (which is sad). No, the real danger is the person who first decides "something ought to be done about this". "There ought to be a law...", they will conclude. It's when we start hearing these sort of statements in conjunction with news trends that our ears ought to perk up. When that starts to happen, the freedom grabbing Statists will heed the call to action.

So be careful what you ask for. Big Brother will always be more than happy to trade you a little temporary security in exchange for your essential liberties.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Be careful what you say and where you say it

Website posting leads to robbery of Newcastle gun owner.
Durham Police say thieves likely used a website posting to trace a gun owner, break into his Newcastle home, rip his safe off the wall and steal rifles, shotguns, pistols and bullets.
Not everybody cruising the net wants to know about your guns just because they think they're cool.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Items of interest

I haven't had much time to write, but here are a few things of interest (to me, anyway):

Teddy Kennedy's son got in a drunken wreck. We'd be treated the same way, right?

Here are some links to a little light conspiracy theory reading:

If reading's not your thing, download and watch this video. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, because I haven't got it all downloaded, but it looks very interesting so far.

I haven't read this (Crackdown takes aim at guns, sentencing) but it looks like something I ought to be covering.

Here (New law puts guns in right hands) is a response to an article I wrote about recently ("Kaci is Confused" - April.)

Sorry, but the lack of comments and feedback makes it less fulfilling to put the work in to writing.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

“We in law enforcement need to be professional.”

PANAMA — An unpaid reserve officer with the Panama Police Department will not be pulling any shifts until a federal investigation into his alleged harassment of a teen — including putting a loaded pistol to the teen’s head — is complete, the chief of the department said Friday.

In their reports, the teens claim Coffey was immediately verbally abusive, telling the young men to stay put, and using numerous profanities. At the time, witnesses said, Coffey had his gun drawn.

Once he removed the flashlight from Eric McKinney’s neck, McKinney opened his cell phone to call his dad. Witnesses said Coffey quickly “punched” it out of McKinney’s hand.

After knocking the phone away, McKinney and others said, Coffey put his police-issued Glock pistol to McKinney’s temple, pushing the teen’s head to the headrest.“He held the gun to Eric’s head for 30 or 45 seconds,” Josh Cox wrote,” screaming and cussing.”

Check out David's "only ones" files for more like this.

The police will protect you, just call 911

I'll just quote excerpts; I think you'll get the picture.

A frantic Tonya J. Goble-Studer, 23, reportedly called 911 in LaPorte on Friday begging for a police Officer. Witnesses said she claimed her husband had just put a gun to her head and was coming back after her to kill her.

About an hour later, Goble-Studer and her mother were found shot dead in Michigan.

"I was completely blown away 911 didn't send an officer," said Kieran McHugh, principal of Renaissance Academy, a private school located across from the Studer residence

McHugh said she and two other staff members overheard Goble-Studer pleading for an officer to come out and help her get to a shelter. "She begged and one hour later she was dead," said McHugh.

Brave shopkeeper defies gun threat

Apparently, it's brave to just tell an armed (would-be) robber to go away, yet one is still accused of self-defense when they lawfully protect themselves.

Pigs are flying

This is incredible. A citizen used a lawfully owned firearm to prevent an assault, but the amazing things are:
  • The article about it is in the Chicago Tribune.
  • The man (shooter/defender) was not arrested, and is being presumed innocent of any wrong-doing by the police.
  • He defended himself with an AK-47 - I'm sure it was a knock-off(semi-automatic), but still the EVIL AK-47 is used to dispense justice and the media has nothing to say?

I thought it was a military-style weapon that's not good for anything but killing people! Well, I guess it is, and it turns out that that's a good reason to own one.

Damion arrived at the home with two friends and began quarreling with the 32-year-old about money Damion thought the man owed an acquaintance, Lambert said. "The resident was attacked ... and got out the weapon to hold off the attackers," Lambert said. "We're confident it was self-defense." The man was a registered gun owner and the AK-47 was a legal weapon, Lambert said.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Kids and household guns

This article is all about how many kids allegedly have access to household guns despite parents that contend otherwise. I didn't find any information about who funded the "study" or where the actual results can be found, but there is this paragraph at the end:

Firearms account for about 10 percent of deaths among U.S. children aged 5 to 14, the study noted. For every gun-related death among children, three children are injured by guns. Household guns are responsible for many of these incidents.

I'm pretty sure that guns don't just go out and hunt down 5-14 year old kids, so I don't know how they can be "responsible for many of these incidents".

$30 million to target gangs, guns

Members of the group will meet in Denver through Thursday and attend meetings and workshops designed to strengthen their efforts in combating gang and gun violence.

Newsflash: "Gang and gun violence" does NOT equal "gangs and guns". Gangs (the term generically used) nor guns are inherently evil. Using either to commit unjust violence, is.

As an aside, I did not see anywhere in the article where the money would be used in any way to "target" guns.

More on Property Rights vs 2A

Another common argument goes something like this:
If an employer can tell you what you can and can't have in your car, then they
must be able to conduct searches! You don't advocate that, do you!?!

Yes, I do. It happens all the time. I've had a job where my car (and everyone else's) was subject to search upon entering the premises. I no longer work there, and if enough people held their right to privacy and protection over the privilege of employment, they might just change their policy.

Until then, I'll be happy in my new job.

TFS Magnum on guns at work

TFS Magnum believes that employers have their private property decisions made for them, by the government:

It isn't about having a gun in your car at work. It is about being able to defend yourself on the drive to-and-from work. People being stalked are most vulnerable when they are on a fixed schedule at a known location: to-and-from work, picking-up and dropping-off kids at school and daycare, to-and-from religious services. All are known locations, and known schedules. All are places that society loves to disarm people.

If it's about being able to defend yourself on your drive "to and from work", then there are options available that don't encroach on an employer's right to dictate the terms of those who wish to enter its property.

The most obvious answer to me is, don't park at work. Park and walk. Figure something out.

The next option is to find somewhere else to work. That's how a free market works. You vote with your loyalty. If an employer wants to diminish your ability to defend yourself, go work for someone who doesn't.

The whole point is that if you want to be able to protect yourself on your way to and from work, don't expect the government to force your employer to give up his right to dictate the terms of entrance to his property. Find a way that suits your needs and doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

If you're not willing to look for a different job or walk from a different parking location, then I guess it's not really that important to you. If you're more willing to take away your employer's rights than to do something like that...

Then I guess you think that you're just "more equal than others".

Update: Bobg, in comments, thinks that employers should be responsible for the protection of their employees if they insist on disarming them. To that, I would reply:

You are (or at least, should be) a free person. You are free to ask to enter my property, and I am free to either admit or refuse you. I may conditionally admit you, and you may choose to accept or refuse my conditions. If you accept, you have done so of your own choice, and I will not be held responsible for the choice YOU made.
So it goes with this issue. If you choose to work where you are required to relenquish your arms, you have put yourself at risk, and must be ready to bear the consequenses.

Jewel-Osco and Chase Bank fund gun buyback

Now you know who (partially at least) paid for those guns. I don't shop at Jewel, but I have business with Chase. I guess it's time to reconsider.

Update: Notice the usage of the word "confiscate", even though the guns were turned in voluntarily and those who turned them in received some kind of compensation.

1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority.

Monday, May 01, 2006

"I had a tragic boating accident"

WTNH covers the defeat of a bill in CT that would require citizens to report stolen guns, or else.
The bill would have imposed a $500 fine on anyone who does not report a lost or stolen gun within 72 hours after the weapon has gone missing.

I suppose the precious gun tracing databases won't work very well if people don't report their firearms stolen. Personally, I suspect that when the confiscations start, laws like these will be used to prevent folks from saying the (to be confiscated) guns were stolen.

I guess we'll have to revert to the old, "They were lost in a tragic boating accident" excuse.

Chicago gun "buyback"

Officials said this weekend`s collection was successful due to the participation of local churches and heightened community awareness following the shooting of two young girls in the city`s Englewood community last month.

Read: Your tax dollars were taken from you at gunpoint (if necessary) to implement a purposeless knee-jerk reaction to a criminal act. Law abiding citizens were willfully disarmed, and criminals now have more easy targets.

Do you suppose those at the churches who were collecting the guns all had FOID cards?

Professionalism is not hereditary

A cop's child shoots himself with the cop's gun. Tragic as it may be, I guess it just goes to show they really aren't more professional than the rest of us.

Bruce Willis on the 2A

"If you take guns away from legal gun owners then the only people who would have guns would be the bad guys. Even a pacifist would get violent if someone were trying to kill him or her."

I guess not all Hollyweirdos are anti's. Bruce uses a lot of guns in a lot of movies - he must be an expert. Oh well, we'll take the help from whom we can get it.