Category Archives: guns

gun control, guns, hoplophobia, Schools and campuses

Well… Bye!

7 Comments

A university economics professor has apparently soiled himself at the thought that students at the University of Texas-Austin (UT) will be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms by carrying concealed weapons on campus, so he has huffily submitted his resignation to the school.

“As much as I have loved the experience of teaching and introducing these students to economics at the university, I have decided not to continue,” economics professor Daniel Hamermesh said in a letter to university administrators this week. “With a huge group of students my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law.”

What I find instructive about this sniveling missive is the fear for his own safety. He’s afraid his students would shoot him. Why is that? Is he that horrible of a teacher? Is he cruel? Is he unfair? Why would any student want to shoot him?

And more importantly, if a student did want to shoot him, would a law banning concealed carry on campus stop him or her? Given the fact that guns were banned on the Virginia Tech campus when Seung-Hui Cho committed his atrocity, I doubt it.

Additionally, I would think that this particular pusillanimous weasel would prefer a legally armed student in his class to hide behind in case a disgruntled cretin does decide to take his impotent rage out on the professor. Even if he doesn’t  have enough testicular fortitude to carry a tool of self defense and take responsibility for his own safety, one would think he would have enough common sense to rejoice at the thought that someone in his class could act in that capacity! But no…

Not this weasel.

I cannot believe that I am the only potential or current faculty member who is aware of and disturbed by this heightened risk. As I wrote on my blog several years ago, no doubt this law will make it more difficult to attract faculty, especially those who are willing and able to teach large groups of students.

You can’t believe that other educated, intelligent, rational adults wouldn’t project their own insecurities onto law-abiding adults, who choose to peaceably exercise their rights? You can’t believe that other faculty members don’t think so little of themselves, that they would publicize their paranoia about being shot by a student? You can’t believe that other educators respect their students as rational adults and law-abiding citizens, while you think so little of them and yourself that you would quit your job over a law that allows them to exercise their rights?

Luckily for his students and any future classes this pathetic coward may have taught, he’s moving to Australia to teach in a “gun-free” environment.

We say, “See ya!” You won’t be missed.

The actual copy of the letter can be found here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

They’re Finally Being Honest

10 Comments

The Washington Post editorial page editor is finally being honest about the liberals’ gun control agenda. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt has penned… or I should say spewed his uninformed opinion entitled, “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

This is how you know a leftard is about to soil his unmentionables – when he “courageously” challenges the big, bad NRA from the safety and comfort of his computer – while advocating what eventually would lead to civil war in this country.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thing doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

What, REALLY? You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your assertion that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie. And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large?

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

Tell us why you think that criminals will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn that gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013.  Know now many drowned? 568.  Know how many died in a fire? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances beat the 100,000 who Fred claims get shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

Perhaps we should, but you might want to sit out the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

San Francisco’s Only Gun Shop to Close

4 Comments

Remember when I wrote a few months ago about the “no brainer” legislation proposed by San Francisco’s own “no-brainer” Mark Farrell to make purchasing a gun in the city even more difficult than it already was?

The law would impact exactly one store – the only one left in the city – and that store is about to close its doors.

Under siege from an increasing amount of regulation from City Hall, “High Bridge Arms” is closing, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Steven Alcairo, general manager of the modest storefront in San Francisco’s Mission District, says his business is being pushed out by a proposed city law that would require the store to videotape every gun sale, then turn in the footage to the police department.

Gun buyers already have to fill out a detailed form, go through a background check and a waiting period. But sending a videotape of the purchase to local police strikes Alcairo as one regulation too many.

Apparently, once the proposal was announced, the store’s sales dipped, and it decided it wasn’t worth sticking around in a place where they were nothing but vilified and targeted by authoritarian maggots intent on driving them out and ruining their business all for the purpose of looking like they’re doing something.

It’s not difficult to assess that this is part of the gun grabbers’ greater strategy. They’ve failed in the courts to ruin legitimate businesses. They’ve been unsuccessful in electing their minions based on this anti-freedom agenda. And Americans continue to reject more gun control as the answer to violence.

So what’s an enterprising gun grabber to do?

Well, apparently some are targeting legitimate businesses and bogging them down with so many regulations, that they are finding it impossible to operate within city limits. That’s right. They are targeting innocent business owners, threatening their livelihoods, and attacking their right to conduct legitimate business transactions.

This isn’t the first time a horde of economically illiterate, tyrannical swine have caused a company to shutter or relocate. Remember Remington Arms decision not to build a new factory in New York because of its hysterical, ridiculous unSAFE Act? How about Beretta’s decision to move production out of Maryland?

This appears to be the strategy folks. If you can’t beat them in the courts and in the legislature, choke off the supply by bogging them down with so many rules and regulations, they can’t operate. Who cares if jobs and livelihoods are impacted!

This is a sick, twisted strategy to attack property rights and Second Amendment rights all in one fell swoop, and while America focuses on the latest “outrage” that has escaped Trump’s maw, or whether or not crazy woman in Kentucky should have been held in contempt of court, some localities have been slowly destroying legitimate commerce in an effort to find a backdoor entrance to restrict your rights.

Keep watching reality TV and reading tabloid news, America. When you finally wake up and realize that your rights are gone, it will be too late.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, defense of others, gun control, gun grabbers, guns, hoplophobia, mindset, Politics, self defense, You can't fix stupid

Dear Aharon

I suppose during this time of year I am more given to introspection. But I’m seeing all these things that just don’t add up and make any sense to me. ֪ Conundrums if you will.

For example, why does it seem like “J Street” doesn’t really like Jews, or at least those Jews in Israel very much?

J Street
J Street

 

Another one, I have been thinking about the column Nicki wrote on Soccer Mom’s and the view I often hear expressed “If it saves just ONE life” in regards to why law abiding gun owners who have done nothing wrong should give up their rights. But then I read a story like the fourteen year old who used his .22 rifle to protect himself and his six year old sibling from home invaders who came in broad daylight.

Then I read this story about children even younger! This time it was an eleven year old who shot and killed at sixteen year old home intruder, the other intruder escaped but was later captured. He was protecting himself and his four year old little sister. I don’t think an eleven year old could have prevailed against two older teenagers without an defensive tool.

There are children alive today because they had access and training to defensive tools to help them. I then compare it to a story out of California several years ago. It’s so sad, it has always stuck with me.

Just a little over fifteen years ago, in Merced California a madman broke into the Carpenter farm house. The father was at work, the mom had taken the car to have the brakes looked at. She left fourteen year old Jessica in charge.

I was babysitting at twelve, I do not find this shocking.

For some reason we will never know a insane man broke into the farm house after cutting the phone lines. When Jessica heard a noise she came out of her room and found a naked man standing in the living room wielding a pitchfork. She fled to her room and tried to do what liberals say, she called the police. With the phone not working (the older version of no signal available) she had no success. So she crawled out the window to go get help.

The madman began stabbing little thirteen year old Anna first. Her younger sister Ashley was apparently born a sheepdog. And as such, she died. She yelled at the man not to hurt her sister. He left off stabbing Anna and killed Ashley aged nine years old.

Jessica had ran next door to neighbor Juan Fuentes and begged him to get a gun and “take care of this guy”. Juan was not inclined to save the children being murdered, though he did graciously allow Jessica to use the phone. She called police.

When they arrived he rushed them with the pitchfork, whereupon they shot him. Since they had guns, they could do that.

Jessica, Vanessa and Anna survived. The valiant little sheepdog Ashley, did not. Nor did her younger brother John who was stabbed in his sleep.

If this was not heinous enough, I will make it more so. It was most likely, preventable. Jessica KNEW how to shoot, she had earned a safety certificate when she was twelve. There WERE guns available, her father had at least a .357 and Jessica not only knew where it was, she knew well how to shoot it. So why didn’t she? Because California has MANDATORY safe storage. The gun was locked up, high on a shelf where Jessica couldn’t reach it. Even if she could, she would have needed to retrieve ammo from another spot and load it. I can only pity the poor Father, who had done everything else right, but was more afraid of the state, than a pitchfork wielding maniac. So doesn’t it seem like the soccer mom crowd and people like that silly Watts woman are partly responsible for their death?

I also do not understand how women that claim to be feminists can say that women shouldn’t have guns because they are “too weak”. After all these years of telling me “I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you’re a man”, you now tell me I’m too weak to handle a tool that could protect me, my family and my animals? Listen broad, what’s mine? I protect. As very best I can. I can get a 1,300 lb animal to go the direction I want him (most of the time) by pointing a finger, I can protect mine with a effective defensive tool. Sorry Aharon, I’ll stuff the cowgirl back down. But doesn’t this seem a bit hypocritical? Especially if it’s a politician that has taxpayer funded security? I can’t afford that!

So, I don’t know. I just don’t understand why some people say that citizens who have done nothing wrong will make us all safer if we give up rights and ability to protect ourselves. And why do the people that say that sometimes have the very tools they want to deny us? Although the NRA says he wasn’t that bad, I’m not sure what to think since they did endorse Harry Reid.

So, I’m just trying to make sense of some of this, and to reflect on my behavior and am I being consistent. Can you help with some advice?

Sincerely,

נצ

Dear נצ

Give it up, you are dealing with a mindset you should hope to NEVER understand. You’ll make yourself crazy with this stuff. Give it up and go have a nice cup of Israeli coffee. You’ll feel better.

Regards,

אַהֲרֹן

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

2 Comments

I initially posted this fisk at the Liberty Zone, but I thought that even though a renewed push for gun control is going on in my own state, it’s actually a nationwide problem, so I decided to post it here as well.

My husband got so angry with our local officials, he took his anger out in writing on the top Virginia political conservative blog. Angry Rob is angry. And he has every right to be. These gun-grabbing embarrassments are doing a blood dance on the corpses of innocent victims of violence!

But on top of all that, which would amount to a disgusting display by itself, they are flat out LYING. No, Del. Hope, buying a gun at a gun show is NOT “as easy as buying a pack of bubble gum at the 7-Eleven.” Purchases at a gun show of firearms happen the same way they do outside of gun shows, and Patrick Hope knows this. Dealers are required to perform background checks, private sellers are not. He also knows that the Smith Mountain Lake murderer, a disgruntled former co-worker of the two victims, passed a background check to purchase the gun he used. The fact that he and his cohorts got 30,000 signatures for their petition doesn’t matter, other than to demonstrate how easy it is to prey upon low-information folks to advance a cause.

Rob and I once had a very respectful, decent conversation with Del. Patrick Hope during Virginia Lobby Day. He spewed anti-Second Amendment platitudes, cited faulty information, and listened respectfully when I called him on it and corrected him. He also seemed genuinely interested in the facts I gave him about gun safety, background checks, etc.

Apparently, that was just lip service…

And his “guns are oh-so easy to get” mantra is being echoed by Shannon Watts wannabes in the Old Dominion. It is one of these ignorami that I fisk below.

 

Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, VA, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.

[…]

The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns.

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns

“Shocking” Study: Criminals Don’t Buy Guns Legally

3 Comments

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

I know you’ll be shocked to know this, but apparently criminals don’t undergo background checks at shops or gun shows in order to purchase guns they use in crimes. I don’t know how this happened, but I, for one, am surprised beyond all belief! After all, don’t criminals get guns from evil gun dealers/gun shows/pawn shops/flea markets?

Apparently not. Believe me, I was just as shocked as you were to find out that criminals get guns from… well… mostly other criminals!

I don’t know about you all, but my worldview has now been shattered.

And if you think all that was easy to write with a straight face, trust me, it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I kind of look like this now.

stressed

In all seriousness, researchers Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Parker found some interesting results about where criminals get guns – results gun rights advocates knew about: Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.

[S]urvey evidence provides strong evidence that the gun market is sharply differentiated by the characteristics of the individual who is seeking a gun. Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.

Translation: law-abiding citizens purchase guns legally. Criminals purchase their guns through illicit sources or personal connections.

The study discusses a social network – personal connections that allow criminals who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase guns to easily get them. Whether it’s addicts who get their hands on firearms and sell them to get a profit to buy drugs or someone in the “hood” that hasn’t been nabbed for a major crime, has a FOID card, and can legally purchase firearms and resell them to others in the hood who cannot, obtaining firearms illegally despite stringent laws doesn’t appear to be all that difficult based on this study.

Oh, and then I find this little tidbit interesting. The same gun grabbers who whine that only police and military should have access to firearms will find the following finding disturbing: two respondents in the survey mentioned that guns come from corrupt police.

Guns are from the “government” or corrupt police. R52. “Police take guns and put them back on the street.” R69: “Crooked officers put guns back on the streets.” 

A few things I get from this study:

  • Enhanced background checks will do nothing to stop criminals from using their social networks from procuring guns.
  • Government is part of the problem.
  • All it takes is one person who is not prohibited from owning guns to start distributing them to his buddies who are.

So what can be done?

Certainly more laws called for by feckless politicians won’t remedy the issue. Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals. I was struck by the fact that many of these criminals were apparently purchasing firearms primarily for self defense. “Many gave some version of the phrase ‘I’d rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six.’ ” Pollack said.

These people live in rough neighborhoods. They don’t exactly have access to gated communities and armed guards. They are the ones who are more likely than not to need armed protection. Now, by saying this, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THIS IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. I’m certainly not an apologist. That said, I can also understand why the people in “the hood” would feel the need for armed protection more than your suburban soccer mom screeching for more gun control because of something she saw on the news. (Yes, I’m talking to you Shannon Watts!)

Given the fact that most of these criminals obtained guns from their connections in the hood, will any politician call for denials of gun purchases merely based on where the buyer lives? Cue screeches of RAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMM!

Given that these connections are social in nature, will politicians call for limiting cell phone usage of people in “the hood”? Maybe preventing them from associating with one another? Or maybe deny certain individuals who legally are eligible to purchase a firearm the right to do so based on who their friends are? Yeah, can’t wait to see how that works out!

But in their zeal to appear as if they’re “doing something” some families of the victims demand,  they forget that doing something that would prove to be ineffective is akin to doing nothing at all. Well, nothing other than interfering with the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

I suspect politicians know this, but the urge to get re-elected is much like the urge to mate during Pon Farr. Common sense pretty much flies out the window, and what’s left is this primal urge to remain in power. My own State Delegate Patrick Hope confirms this phenomenon. “People are angry,” Hope said. “People are angry by the inaction.”

So strong is the urge to remain in office, that politicians are even willing to lie. Yeah… I know you’re shocked by this phenomenon.

Currently, there is a loophole in Virginia that doesn’t require background checks for sales at gun shows. Hope said he went to a gun show and asked if he could get a gun without a background check. Instead of raising red flags, the vendors were more than happy to help him.

A) The majority of vendors at gun shows who sell guns are FFLs, which means they are required by law to run a background check! And they are meticulous. Know why? Because any discrepancy in records, any anomaly means they could lose their license and their livelihoods!

2) What Hope and other gun grabbers want isn’t background checks at gun shows, where the “loophole” is nonexistent. What they want is to stamp out private sales – to prevent people from legally selling their own property to others – an inexcusable infringement on property rights.

And here’s the thing. Nothing in these proposals would have stopped the shooting of two television station employees in Roanoke. The shooter had no criminal record, no mental health disqualification, nothing that should have prevented him from making that purchase.  The illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle got the gun from a careless law enforcement officer, who left his firearm in the car. The Islamic fundamentalist loon who shot up recruiting stations in Tennessee was also able to pass a background check. Would politicians now calling for more gun control advocate a denial of Second Amendment rights if one is a Muslim? I’d love to see the screeching from CAIR if that ever became a proposal!

Bottom line is this: the study above shows without a doubt that law abiding citizens are not the problem, and more laws are not the solution. As a sheriff I know once told me, laws are for the law-abiding.

Maybe politicians should focus on root causes of violence, rather than blaming the tool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns, hatred of Jews, Jewish history

Never Forget

I don’t normally blog on Jewish history. I leave it to others, who are much better versed than I. However, when a friend posted this on Facebook, I simply couldn’t resist sharing.

jews

It’s a reminder. Never forget that once you cede that your rights are merely privileges granted at the whim of a government, they can be taken away at that same whim.

Carry on.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Elsewhere, genocide, guns, hatred of Jews, Israel, mindset, Politics, Sellouts and traitors

By The Rocket’s Red Glare

9 Comments

Americans and the rest of the world have been assured in no uncertain terms that the Iranian nuclear arms deal will keep us, and the rest of the world safer.

The Iran nuclear deal “will make America and the world safer and more secure”, President Barack Obama said on Saturday.The 159-page agreement between six world powers and Iran was finalized this week in Vienna, after extensive talks. On Saturday, Obama used his weekly address to seek support among voters, prior to the congressional vote on the deal and against a backdrop of Republican-led opposition.“This deal will make America and the world safer and more secure,” Obama said.“Still, you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead.”

He has for 3 years referred to any opposition to giving nuclear capability and money to a country that hates America and Israel as “noise”.

But now we have the John Kerry brokered deal. And it will keep us and Israel safer.

There’s been a little squabbling over it.  President Sotero assures the Jewish community that oppose giving a country determined to wipe the one Jewish state in the world off the map nuclear capabilities that they need to put their “emotions” aside. He then assured everyone that he was pro-Israel. I suppose this was necessary since he is in favor of allowing a country determined to wipe Israel off the map to have a nuclear weapon. But he also feels that once the agreement has been signed sealed and sold out by Congress that Israeli-American relations will improve. Since the deal also involves giving Iran the technology to defeat any attempts Israel might make to defend herself by pre-emptive strikes I find this delusion astonishing.

As he has in previous speeches and interviews, Obama sought to refute criticism of the accord point by point. He disputed the notion that Iran would funnel the bulk of the money it receives from the sanctions relief into terrorism, saying Iranian leaders are more likely to try to bolster their weak economy. He also said the agreement wasn’t built on trusting Iran’s government, which frequently spouts anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Keep that bit in mind.

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

Ok, first this is the woman that makes the round of Sunday Talk shows telling America the reason for the attack and resulting deaths in Benghazi was a youtube video. Second, Susan Rice and the word “Security” should never been in the same sentence, let alone job description. Beyond that her idea of “bad behavior” defies understanding. Bad behavior is a two year old stamping it’s feet and yelling “NO” at it’s mother, it’s a teen-ager speeding or your horse kicking, nipping or bucking. But I guess if you are part of the Sotero regime then terrorism is “bad behavior”, you know, just part of the “noise”.

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business – many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran’s top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”

Last week I was pretty much away from the computer, but the first part of last week I found out that rockets has been fired into the Golan by Iran. So I wonder if Barry, Phil & Susie will suggest that Iran go into a time out?

But wait there’s more. Iran is wisely and peacefully spending your taxpayer money every bit as carefully as the obamas on one of their many vacations.

How silly to think American tax money would ever be spent to harm Israel. They’re probably just cranky and need to go for a nap, right Susie?

Especially shocking considering Iran had been engaged in activity hostile to Israel for he last 20 months in the North. Who ever could have imagined it would continue on a bigger scale if they had more money and basically no restrictions?

Wonder if barry is making the rounds at cocktail parties saying “Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit! I really thought they’d put that money into their economy! That was why the people voted for the current regime”.

Then there are the various and sundry terrorist organizations now competing for funding from Iran & it’s unfrozen assets. They do this by committing terrorist acts against Israel to show Iran they can produce results for the money. So Susie, is that “bad behavior” or just “acting out”?

If you want to consider that often what happens in Israel becomes mirrored in America I shudder. Or as I hear a radio talk show host from Israel say often “Coming soon to a theater near you” when talking about what America is creating for herself.

All this has been about nuclear weapons, and putting America, Israel and the rest of the world at risk. And Barry is willing to do that as he assures America it will keep “us” safer. Despite evidence to the contrary, he says it will keep “us” safer.

So next time you hear Barry talking about how “common sense gun control will keep us safer” and that most gun owners want it, remember a couple things. He lies like a rug and two he ignores all evidence to the contrary to further his agenda.

If he is willing to put the world at risk with a nuclear weapon in Iran’s hands, why would you even wonder if the safety of you or your family is really his concern? I suppose though, if we ask ourselves who the “us” is that he wants to keep safer, his statements would make sense if it is the muslim terrorists and thugs. Because his plans and ideology certainly will keep them safer. Perhaps he identifies more with them, thus it will keep “us” safer.

 

Iran's peaceful program
Iran’s peaceful program
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
guns, Inspiration, mindset, Political philosophy

The Post-Pessimist Era In Gun Rights Advocacy

2 Comments

For many years, gun rights advocacy groups in the US – and, to some extent, elsewhere – built their fundraising and outreach efforts, and their entire public stance, on combatting threats to gun rights. On a regular basis, money would be requested, and activists roused from their slumber, on the idea that the anti-gun lobby had contrived a new threat to rights and liberties – a handgun ban, an “assault weapons” ban, a gun registration scheme or a gun buyback. For many years the tone of gun rights advocacy was the tone of alarm.

But, even as the rhetoric of fear has still been used effectively time and time again, gun rights in America (and to some extent, in Canada and some other nations) have gradually started taking back lost ground, and even capturing ground that had never before been held by the freedom movement. By now there are seven states within the Union that do not require a permit of any kind to carry a concealed weapon (and many more states allow one to carry a weapons without a permit if one does so openly). Public attitudes in America have swung wildly towards the pro-gun worldview, and gun rights groups have sprung up around the world – in Russia, Australia, the Czech Republic, Israel, and so on – places that have ten years ago not even had a gun rights movement at all.

As I type those words, bills and lawsuits are winding their way through the legislatures and courts of the United States to expand gun rights in the United States in ways in which our movement could not have been considered possible only ten years ago. In Australia, a recent attempt at panic-induced gun control has just gotten derailed by a small group of liberty-minded legislators. Canada’s legislature is moving another bill to protect gun owners from its overreaching bureaucracy and take back some fraction of the freedoms that have been lost in the moral panics of the 90s.

At least in America – and arguably in several other countries – the gun rights movement no longer inhabits that era where the slightest lapse could lead to an extinction of liberty. Instead, an era has come where a serious and well-planned effort can lead to an expansion of liberty. It is time for us to come for a recognition that it is not gun rights that are under threat by now – it is gun control that is under threat.

And with this recognition, we should move to have a more truthful discussion with the freedom-loving public. Our message should now be a post-pessimist one – one when we rouse our friends and supporters not to fight a last-ditch, defensive fight against a collapse into the dark ages, but rather to fight an advance. We are winning, and we should act like it. We are now in a position of strength, and we should talk like it. Our tone should be now not one of fear – it should now, both in the legislatures, the gun periodicals, and the fundraising mailers, be one of optimism and strength.

Should we do so, we would be able to talk less and less about stopping anti-gun measures, and talk more – and take more haste in – implementing pro-gun ones. To speak from a position strength will reflect reality – and help us progress faster towards liberty.

We’re the winning team.

Let’s act like it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail