Tag Archives: gun control

How Do Those Shackles Taste, Lawson?

Lawson Clarke is an ad exec from Massachusetts and a “Gun Owner Who is Perfectly Comfortable With Gun Control.”

Translation: he’s a serf, who has no comprehension of the meaning of a right and thinks the Second Amendment protects his “right” to hunt.

In his article for NPR, he details the laborious process he underwent as a Massachusetts resident to get state permission to exercise his rights, and he apparently doesn’t mind the numerous forms, background checks, and exorbitant costs associated with being able to exercise a fundamental right, because MASS SHOOTINGS!

STEP 1: I enrolled in a four-hour firearms safety course registered with the state.

A safety course is always a good idea. Only four hours? Most gun owners I know train much more often and much longer with their self-defense tools. But when mandated by the state, it really becomes a perfunctory gesture. I won’t even get into the whole “registered with the state” thing!

STEP 2: I joined a properly licensed gun club to demonstrate I was merely interested in hunting and recreational shooting. While this was by no means mandatory, it was encouraged by my local police department.

I wonder how much the kickback is for said “encouragement.” And I wonder why this particular brand of stupid doesn’t consider paying to join a club “encouraged” by the police to “prove” that you are only interested in exercising your right to engage in activities that have little to do with the intent of the Second Amendment isn’t a gross violation of said right and a twisted perversion of freedom.

STEP 3: I then visited my local police station, where I presented my application for a license to carry, my firearm safety certificate and a letter from my gun club stating my membership was in good standing.

STEP 4: Along with my paperwork I had to pay a $100 application fee. NOTE: In Massachusetts a firearms license is only valid for six years, and the $100 application fee is due any time I reapply.

A $100 fee to exercise a right, eh? I have to wonder once again if this serf even understands the basic definition of a right.

I also have to wonder how poor people, who ostensibly don’t live in safe, often gated communities (unlike Boston ad executives), but want a means to protect their homes against armed thugs, can afford all these extra expenses in addition to the several hundred dollars for the purchase of the actual gun!

Why do you hate poor people, Lawson?

STEP 5: I sat through a face-to-face interview with a police officer and submitted to a preliminary background check.

STEP 6: My photo and fingerprints were taken and filed digitally with the Massachusetts State Police, along with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the national criminal records database.

Are you applying for a top secret clearance or begging the “authorities” to allow you to exercise a fundamental right?

STEP 7: I made an appointment at the police firing range on Moon Island in Boston Harbor to demonstrate my proficiency with a firearm in front of a state trooper.

Hopefully it wasn’t this guy.

A Massachusetts State Trooper is expected to survive after accidentally shooting himself in the leg, State Police said.

Ooops!

STEP 8: I waited approximately 30 days for my license to be approved.

STEP 9: My class A license to carry arrived in the mail.

I’m sure if you ask any assailant trying to victimize you really nicely to wait until you get your state-sanctioned permission to own a firearm, they’ll oblige. No. Really! Stop laughing!

STEP 10: I visit a nearby gun store, which by law is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau. After presenting my license to the clerk, I was then allowed to browse the store’s inventory.

It’s instructive that you need a license to even go shopping in the People’s State of Massachusetts! But apparently, that bit of statist ploddery doesn’t bother Lawson either.

STEP 11: I selected my very fist firearm: a 30/30 Winchester Model 94, a tried and true staple of New England deer hunting.

Because that’s what the Second Amendment is really about — deer hunting. It says so right there in the text. Wait… no? But… but… but… we in Massachusetts know what the Second Amendment is about! We KNOW freedom, darnit!

STEP 12: While in the store I submitted to yet another background check, this time over the phone with the FBI.

Sure! What’s another background check to make a constitutionally-protected purchase between master and slave?

STEP 13: I waited three days.

Luckily you weren’t a woman who was being stalked and needed a tool to protect herself, eh? But I’m sure if you asked very nicely, the stalker or a violent ex would wait for you to finally purchase your gun!

STEP 14: I returned to the store and picked up my Winchester 30/30, effectively adding my name to the list of over 250,000 legal gun owners in Massachusetts.

Good to know that you don’t mind being added to a state-maintained list of innocent people whose only crime was a desire to exercise their rights. How do those chains taste? Want a gold Star of David so you can be properly identified?

From start to finish, the entire process unfolded over the course of several months, but then again so did acquiring my driver’s license and first car. In fact, one could argue automobiles and firearms are equally lethal machines: each responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year in the United States; so perhaps there’s justification for requiring patience in this endeavor.

I’m willing to bet that acquiring your driver’s license took several months, because the state wanted to ensure that while you’re operating a machine weighing several tons on public roadways, that you are properly educated and trained to do so. I’m also fairly sure you didn’t have to sit down for an interview with law enforcement or undergo two background checks to buy a car or get a license to drive it.

Did you have to pass a background check to buy your car? Did you have to get fingerprinted like a common criminal? Did you have to wait several days before you could take your car home? I don’t think so, Sparky.

Don’t conflate purchasing a car with the months of bureaucratic hoops you had to jump through to purchase a gun. The auto purchase takes a couple of hours and the mere ownership of it does not require training, background checks, fingerprinting, or even a license! The mere purchase requires you have money or sufficient credit to pay for said vehicle. Purchase and operation of the vehicle are two separate things. Of course, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t comprehend or respect the plain language of the Second Amendment to understand that nuance.

As a gun owner, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion of sensible gun control, and in the stark light of recent tragedies, I’d say the process of acquiring my first firearm in Massachusetts was exactly as difficult as it needed to be.

While we’re all thrilled that you’re “perfectly comfortable” – OK, we really don’t give a damn, but still… – let me ask you something, Lawson: Are the people who take the time to go through months of background checks, the training, the fingerprinting, and the waiting periods the ones committing violent acts with firearms? Are all these measures effective crime reduction techniques?

Nope.

Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.

Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.

But… but… but… that’s because illegal guns are flowing from other states!

That’s not what I asked, Sparky. Are the people who are legally licensed to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts the ones committing the crimes?

gun stats

Judging by the records kept in these states, nope! The majority of people willing to undergo all that rigamarole will, in fact, never commit a single crime with that gun, so how is it, exactly, you think you’re helping mitigate violence by subjecting yourself to statist regulations?

Some vocal conservatives are quick to accuse Massachusetts of being a bastion for the liberal elite who are grossly out of touch with the fundamentals of the Second Amendment. It seems they’ve forgotten this is where the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the name of Independence; where simple colonists in 1775 formed a militia and rose up in arms against a formidable force of British Army regulars.

Do you think those colonists registered their weapons? You think they paid some gold to be able to keep a simple defense tool in their homes? They would have probably slapped you stupid at the thought, you quivering-lipped coward! I would submit that given your ardent willingness to submit yourself to onerous infringements of your rights, you are the one who has forgotten Massachusetts’ history of liberty. Not only that, but you spit in its face!

You’re welcome, by the way.

Oh, please shut your ignorant yap! If it had been you and your fellow vassal colostomy bags fighting the war for Independence, begging the government’s permission to allow you to own a simple firearm, we’d still be a British colony!

Trust me, in Massachusetts we know our history and we know the significance of the Second Amendment. However, we also understand that owning firearms is an immense responsibility, and we have carefully balanced our right to keep and bear them with what I would argue are an appropriate amount of institutional safeguards.

You keep referring to that knowing the significance of the Second Amendment thingy… I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know your history and the significance of the Second Amendment, then you should also know that responsibility has nothing to do with paying bribes to petty statists to allow you to exercise a fundamental right.

And no, I don’t trust you when you tell me how much you respect the right to keep and bear arms, even as you gleefully submit to noxious infringements on said right! Thanks for playing.

Is it a perfect system everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But in a time when contentious shouting has largely supplanted meaningful debate, perhaps that’s too much to hope for. However, there is data to suggest our state gun ownership laws are working. Well, that is to say, they seem to work better than the gun policies of most other states. In a recent study, Massachusetts stands out as having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to Hawaii, a state with a population one-fifth our size.

Actually, no. And the statistics you cite for only one year are deceptive at best. If you refer to the Boston Globe article I cited above, you will see that gun-related deaths have nearly doubled from 1998 when your state first ushered in its tyrannical infringements on people’s rights!

In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998, said Fox, the Northeastern professor. Nationwide, such murders increased only 3 percent from 1999 to 2010, the CDC says.

There were increases in other crimes involving guns in Massachusetts, too. From 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7 percent. Robberies with firearms increased 20.7 percent during that period, according to an FBI analysis conducted for the Globe.

So not only has gun-related violence increased in Massachusetts since the package of draconian gun control measures was passed, but said violence has increased at a higher rate than the rest of this country! How are those “gun ownership laws” working out for you, Lawson?

Clearly the epidemic of gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national level. For any gun owner or gun rights advocate to suggest otherwise is not only stubbornly myopic, but inhumane.

And here we have the emotionalist rhetoric we’ve so grown accustomed to from gun-grabbing freaks and their obedient chattel.

If you don’t support tyrannical infringements on your rights, you’re heartless.

If you don’t useless bureaucracy to make your right to self defense cost-prohibitive, you’re stubborn.

If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to a metaphorical anal probe in order to exercise your fundamental rights – an anal probe that has no hope of actually reducing violence – you’re myopic and inhumane.

Clearly you haven’t heard the news that overall, violence has been on the decline in the United States. So maybe, before you decide to spew another load of nonsense into the Interwebz, you’ll do some research, and also look up the meaning of the word “epidemic.”

So if we’re earnestly looking to take steps towards reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States while respectfully preserving our Constitutional right to legally own firearms, perhaps the rest of the country should, once again, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.

And watch our gun-related violence nearly double, as it did in Massachusetts? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Please keep your statist mitts off my rights. I can see you obviously enjoy your shackles, but the rest of us are just a bit smarter than that! So just go back to licking the boots of your masters and leave the rest of us alone.

Stick to advertising, Lawson. Obviously logic, basic research, and policy are not your strong points!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

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

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

By The Rocket’s Red Glare

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
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Ever Helpful NRA

Backed by the National Rifle Association, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader is introducing legislation that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers.

The bill promoted Wednesday by Sen. John Cornyn, who has an A-plus rating from the NRA for his gun rights record, is far more modest than a Senate measure expanding background check requirements that the organization and Republicans helped defeat two years ago. Cornyn’s proposal also is narrower than a measure a top Senate Democrat announced this week.

Recent shootings have drawn attention to weaknesses in the background check system. The gunman in last month’s killings in a Louisiana movie theater had mental problems that went unreported to the federal database.

“Gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a written statement.

Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cornyn-nra-gun-background/2015/08/05/id/665507/

Way cool Jen! Everyone wants safer communities. And maybe you have a really good “in” with someone like, oh an Eric Holder, or say a Loretta Lynch? No? Then you are flying as blind as John Heinz-Kerry. While he doesn’t know everything that is in the Iranian nukes side deals that have been made, the NRA, doesn’t know WHO gets to decide WHAT are mental problems and HOW severe they are do they?

The SAF that thinks Universal Background Checks are a peachy idea, and WHAT could possibly be bad about that? The NRA now thinks a federal government that has IRS employees targeting conservatives, the DOJ selling guns to Drug lords, inciting violence and persecuting law enforcement officers, a NSA that has been exposed as spying on ordinary citizens and foreign countries, ICE and Border Patrol that are told to practice catch and release, the EPA wanting to go after farmers for “farm dust” will be responsible enough with the NICS check not to abuse a power to prevent citizens from owning guns which the current regime, well, hates. All that lovely obamacare data, just lingering in a electronic database. The federal government would never abuse that, right? I mean look how well the plethora of other governmental agencies have behaved under the current regime.

So, what are reasons to be denied your Second Amendment rights now, without the NRA’s helpful bill?

Well, if you are a Veteran and need help managing your finances, that will do it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/is-the-veterans-affairs-dept-trying-to-preventing-some-vets-from-owning-guns/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/feds-sued-for-snatching-veterans-gun-rights/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/senators-aim-to-protect-vets-gun-rights/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/vets-told-they-can-buy-back-2nd-amendment-rights/

What kinds of things can cause you to be accused of mental illness? Depends on what country you live in, but some of these, wow.

http://listverse.com/2015/07/24/10-crazy-cases-of-people-wrongfully-committed-to-insane-asylums/

The NRA will send out those helpful little orange cards, and people will believe them. In my state they have caused harm and prevented some wonderful candidates from being elected. And yet, people think they are a good source of information. Wow. Just, wow.

States are going to be bribed and paid off to send more info on their citizens to the Federal government? What a great bill! Awesome! What could possibly go wrong?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

As If We Didn’t Know Already

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I know this is not news to most of us who have even the slightest knowledge of American politics. After all, Rove was one of the “geniuses” behind the eight years of Bush we were subjected to between 2001 and 2009. And now he’s dedicated himself to spearheading efforts to elect… um… “electable” candidates – and by “electable,” I mean having no morals, ethics, or strong views due to a passionate desire only to get elected, vice actually serve the populace.

Well, as if you needed more proof that Rove is a tool, he’s decided to up his cred as one of the most dangerous and pathetic humans in the political sphere. When Chris Wallace asked Rove in a Fox News interview about the Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, SC  how we can, “stop the violence,” dimwit sniveled that the only way to guarantee they will stop is to “remove guns from society.”

Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.

Well, of course that’s not going to happen! Because people like us stand up to people like Rove and his beloved compromisers! After all it’s Rove and crew that helped give us gun control-loving Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in 2012.

But what Rove said is more dangerous and stupid than you might think. For one, it gives gun grabbers ammunition to claim, “Look! Here’s a conservative admitting that repealing the Second Amendment would dramatically reduce gun violence! BIPARTISANSHIP!

But it’s even more stupid, because it presents a false premise. Not only is it logistically and practically impossible to remove guns from society, but it allows the gun grabbers to set the rules of the playing field. GUN violence is not the problem. Violence writ large is.  And additionally, as the British experiment has proven after the UK all but banned firearms after the Dunblane massacre, removing guns from society does absolutely nothing to mitigate the problem.

Removing guns from society will not reduce violence. The Cumbria shooting still happened in the UK – even after the government instituted stringent gun control – resulting in 12 fatalities and 11 injuries. Terrorists still bombed the public transport system in London in 2005. Japan has virtually eliminated all shooting deaths by banning most firearms, but that doesn’t mean violence has gone away.

And yet, Rove stupidly allowed the gun grabbers to frame the narrative and put the right to keep and bear arms in the crosshairs, so to speak.

Perhaps if the gun grabbers stopped pushing for the disarmament of this nation’s most vulnerable potential victims and started promoting responsible gun ownership, personal responsibility, and self defense, we could drastically reduce violent rampages like the one that claimed the lives of churchgoers in South Carolina.

And as for Karl Rove… STOP TRYING TO HELP!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

They Just Keep Pushing

I don’t know if it’s because there are national elections next year, but the Democrats in Washington and nationwide just keep pushing gun control measure after gun control measure. It’s as if they think that tossing a ton of new legislative proposals at us is like tossing a pot of spaghetti at a wall – one or two are bound to stick, right?

The latest unconstitutional attempt to kick gun owners in the gut (or lower) comes from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-imwit, Md.), who has decided that in order to exercise your fundamental rights to a) make a legitimate purchase and b) use the most effective tool to defend your family and your property, you must have a license – a permission from the federal government. No, it’s not the same as applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which is ineffective and unconstitutional in and of itself. The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would require anyone wishing to purchase certain firearms to get permission from the feds first. In addition to that, the proposal bars anyone under the age of 21 (old enough to serve in the Armed Forces and protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but not old enough to protect themselves or their families against armed thugs) from buying a gun, and yank federal funding from states that refuse to implement this onerous legislation.

Now, there’s obviously no chance of this travesty ever passing Congress… unless Boehner and the other put-the-finger-in-the-wind-and-see-which-way-public-opinion-is-blowing legisleeches overdose on the gun grabber Kool-Aid. That said, Van Hollen and the other gun grabbing, authoritarian swine in Washington are wasting time and resources on proposals they know have no chance of passage.

My educated guess is that with the general election approaching next year, they have to show the hands that feed them (read: Bloomberg, Soros, et. al.) that they’re actually doing something. It may not be something realistic, constitutional, or even sane…

…but it’s something.

“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.”

Of course, this is a lie – or as gun grabbers would claim after being debunked, a “hyperbole.”  The FBI Violent Crime Statistics show less than 70 percent of homicides in the United States in 2013 were committed with firearms – and that’s all firearms, not just handguns. And handguns comprised 68.4 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2013, according to the FBI’s expanded data set.

In other words, Van Hollen’s claims are so much garbage. And considering only a tiny percentage of all gun-related homicides are actually committed with legally-owned firearms, licensing law abiding citizens to make constitutional purchases will do next to nothing to reduce violence committed with handguns, but hey… they’re doing something, right?

Of course, I’m not addressing the more onerous agenda that could be present behind these efforts: disinformation.

We all know how hard it is to pull back information in the digital age. Once it’s out there, it’s out there, and no amount of retractions, debunking, and truth to counter said lies will help.

We also know that the majority of Americans do very little fact checking. They get their information via Internet memes, Twitter, and short snippets of news. I like to call it McNews – the fast food of journalism. Policy makers rely on this. So does the media. And putting wrong, inflated, erroneous, or outright false information out there ensures that at least a certain percentage of the population immediately assimilates it and propagates it.

The lies become part of the fabric of the Internet.

That’s why even if these measures have no chance of passage, those of us who know the facts must act to disseminate them and counter all the polluted information spread by those with an obvious political agenda.

That’s why even though I know Van Hollen’s and others’ lunatic proposals are so much crap, I will continue to point out their lies and spread the truth.

It’s not about ensuring the measures never pass. They wont.

It’s about ensuring that the truth gets out.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

New assaults, old strategy

You know…

It seems that once again the gun grabbers are using the tried and true strategy of simply modifying, updating, or otherwise altering existing laws in order to relieve us of our rights. Since they couldn’t bully Congress into passing more restrictions on the Second Amendment after the Sandy Hook tragedy, they’ve engaged in outright assaults on our rights in other ways. This is in addition to the slew of new legislative proposals that have no hope of actual passage in Congress… we hope.

Carolyn Maloney (D-imwit, NY) proposed legislation to force gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine, claiming since we mandate car insurance, why not gun liability insurance. Of course, she’s ignoring the fact that there is no federal mandate to insure your vehicle, but hey… why spoil a good narrative with facts?

A New Jersey Democrat last month introduced an effort to stop online ammunition purchases.  Bonnie Watson’s bill would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of those wanting to purchase ammunition online by verifying photo identification in person and require ammunition vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. Attorney General, if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.

Carolyn Maloney, who introduced the insurance liability bill, also introduced this abortion of a bill that would require sellers to conduct background checks for all purchases at gun shows and require all purchases to be reported to the Attorney General. This time Maloney rages that “…more children die from gunshot wounds than cancer.” 

The American Cancer Society says cancer is the second leading cause of death in children (after accidents). About 1,250 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from cancer in 2015.  Given advances in cancer research, I would think this number is actually on the decline.

In 2013, the last year for which data is available, according to the CDC, 193 children younger than 15 years of age died of firearm homicides, 69 died of accidental shootings, and 138 killed themselves using a firearm. If my calculator is correct, that makes 400, and that makes Maloney a liar. Again.

Plus, it’s not like dealers already don’t conduct background checks at gun shows! This is Maloney’s sneaky way to introduce background checks between private individuals – an effort that already has been rejected by legislators post Sandy Hook.

Last month, the State Department got into the gun-control fray with a proposal posted in the Federal Register that would require anyone who posts technical details about arms and ammunition online to first receive approval from the federal government or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

This is a threat to the free speech of gun owners and enthusiasts about which we should all be concerned.  State claims it’s merely clarifying some regulations that were passed prior to the advent of the Internet as a mass media tool. But when you threaten to penalize anyone posting technical information about firearms and ammunition online with outrageous fines and jail time, even the most ardent gun grabbers should take pause.

If you want to comment on this proposal, you can do so. The State Department will listen. No… really! Stop laughing!

Public comments are currently being accepted on the proposal. Comments can be made at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ”ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.” The deadline for comments is Aug. 3.

Seriously, a public outcry is the only way to stop this, and the more publicity it gets, the better. After all, how many of us read the Federal Register for pleasure? (OK – maybe me, but only sometimes! I swear!)

In all seriousness, this is an old strategy.

We’re not controlling guns! We’re simply requiring you to purchase liability insurance. Eventually the guns will be rendered cost-prohibitive. But hey, they’re not regulating guns, right?

We’re not controlling guns! We’re controlling ammunition! Nothing in the Second Amendment says your right to keep and bear ammo is sacrosanct!

We’re not controlling guns! We’re just limiting your right to discuss them in technical terms without government permission. And we’ll imprison you if you do. After all…

No gun owners… no guns.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Traveling this summer? CSGV doubles down on the stupid

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has stepped on its own crank again. Between Ladd Everitt harassing a 10-year-old child and the lies the group consistently peddles in its effort to push its odious agenda, it’s a wonder anyone takes it seriously at all!

So it really is no surprise that Everitt and crew have once again swallowed their own feet with their oh-so-stupid and misleading graphics about what states to avoid when you’re traveling this summer. Ostensibly, they might be more dangerous because of their lax gun control laws… except that they’re not. But when has that ever stopped Ladd and his buds?

csgv

Frankly, I love graphics such as this almost as much as I love the Brady Center report card, which neatly allows me to make a fully informed choice about which states will receive my tourism dollars each year!

Let’s take Kansas, for instance. Ladd and his acolytes sure hate Kansas! Why? Because apparently that state leaves people alone to exercise their rights.

And CSGV would like you to believe that Kansas is a dangerous feces-filled hole ridden with violent crime, because if said freedoms.

Except not so much.

In 2010 Kansas ranked 22nd out of the 50 states in firearms murders per 100,000 – ahead of such peaceful gun control utopias as New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and of course Washington, DC.

Last year, Kansas didn’t even make the top 20 list of states with the most gun deaths – and don’t forget that this link includes suicides, which comprise two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the United States!

Kansas is relatively safe, and falls right in the middle of the 50 states when it comes to violent crime. That’s safer than Brady gun control utopias of Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

What do we consider a “safe state”?  Frankly, any state that respects my right to self defense, and protects my fundamental right to keep and bear arms is safe in my book.

Why?

Because my safety, my life, my security, and the safety of my loved ones are ultimately in my hands, and the manner in which I choose to protect my life, loved ones and property is no one’s business but mine.

But more than that, any state that causes Ladd Everitt and the hoplophobic nuts at the Brady Center to soil themselves at the thought of peaceable citizens exercising their rights, is just fine by me as well.

hoplophobia-n-guns-gun-control-demotivational-poster-1259858344

 

And besides, judging by Ladd Everitt’s creepy insistence on harassing and stalking 10-year-old champion shooter Shyanne Roberts and stealing her photos for his own onerous purposes, a firearm is probably a good idea.

shyanne 3

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail