Saturday, October 31, 2009

Laci Talks about U.K. Gun Crime

Laci the Dog has posted a fascinating article on gun crime in the U.K.

I see a lot of drivel spouted by US Gun cretins. The first being "gun rights".

There have never been Gun Rights in British Common law.

After that is the inflated "gun crime" statistic. You can find the actual UK gun crime statistics here. Note that imitation, airguns, and replica arms account for a majority of gun incidents (12569 imitation, airguns, and replica v. 4774 handgun and shotgun out of a total 17343 for 2007/08). Additionally, total "firearms" offences have been declining, rather than increasing: Source.

The British Gun Control Network has a list of Gun Incidents, which they admit is only around 10% of the figure, but they give an idea of what "gun crime" in the UK is like. You should also remember that The Gun Cotrol Network's objectives are "predicated on the belief that the interests of public safety demand a reduction in the availability and attractiveness of guns of all kinds".

You will note that the "gun" incidents listed by the Gun Control Network include: blank firing guns, replica firearms, airguns, stun guns, paintball guns, and even toy guns! That vastly stacks the deck when it comes to "gun crime".

I always take statistics with a grain of salt. There are too many times when opposing groups both come up with credible stats to prove they're right. But this is something else again. Laci summed it up nicely.

So, next time you mention how "gun crime is out of control in the UK" remember that this figure is far more encompassing than US gun crime. I mean think of what the gun ownership would be like if they added toy guns to the amount of REAL guns in circulation in the US!

What do you think? Is comparing U.S. to U.K. gun violence like comparing apples to oranges, or what?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Brady Campaign on the Lou Dobbs Shooting

The Brady Blog posted the details about the Lou Dobbs shooting, mentioning that Mr. Dobbs thinks it was anti-immigration activists. They provided the FOX News report on Lou Dobbs' statement as well as that of the New Jersey State Police, via Huffington Post.

What I found most interesting though, are the closing remarks.

By the way, The Dobbs family lives in New Jersey, a state with some of the strongest gun laws in America, with the nation’s sixth lowest gun death rate.

Across the border in Pennsylvania, the gun death rate is twice as high.

Can anyone explain, after reviewing that table showing the comparative gun death rates by state, how they feel gun laws don't work? Are the gun enthusiasts who insist gun control doesn't work looking at the same numbers I am? Are they really in agreement but exercizing that old strategy of never giving in and never admitting anything? Could people be so unscrupulous as to deny the obvious for fear of being inconvenienced?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

What Makes Fox News Different?

Liberal Viewer posted a wonderful video showing how that Fox News is different. There's been talk comparing Fox to MSNBC. What do you think?

Heatlh Reform and Gun Rights

Reuters reports on the possibility that the latest version of the Health Reform Bill might contain some provisions concerning guns and gun rights.

"The Obama administration and its supporters are using every trick in the book to undermine the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens," John M. Snyder charged here today. "Speaker Pelosi's Halloween government health care bill announcement only underscores this reality." (

Shotgun News recently named Snyder the senior rights activist in Washington. A former NRA editor, he is a director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Manager of Telum Associates, LL.C.

"The current attempt to take over the American health care system by ramming government controls through Congress among other things is a back door attempt to get after Americans' guns," said Snyder. "Obama is trying to do an end run around the Second Amendment under the health care rubric. His National Institutes of Health already is positing an adverse relationship between firearms and health.

Isn't it funny that we were just talking about this? Fishy Jay was suggesting that liberals were showing their hypocrisy in not protesting the tacking of the homosexuality bill onto the military spending one. What about this guy, though? Where was John Snyder when they tacked the "guns in national parks" bill onto the credit card legislation?

The other thing I noticed is that Mr. Snyder seems to be saying that the entire Health Care bill is there for the purpose of slipping in some gun restrictions. Isn't that a little egotistical not to mention paranoid? The Health Care Bill is a "back door attempt to get Americans' guns," says he. For a good laugh watch the video. When he talks about the ORB plan, I wondered what the harsh critics of Jackie Kuhls thought. "The American people are watching ORB."

He says this about the bill:

[It] could be used by anti-gun government bureaucrats to deny health insurance coverage to citizens who possess firearms. Under plans currently being considered in Congress, people could be denied health coverage simply because they owned guns. Bureaucrats could determine that gun ownership constitutes a health hazard. This would be a sleazy, dictatorial backdoor attempt to force law-abiding American citizens to give up their guns."

I'd like to know where exactly in the thousand-plus pages of text it says that. He says it "could" do this and bureaucrats "could" determine. It sounds vague and fishy to me. What do you think?

Could this be just another attempt to generate resistance to Obama's plan? That's what it sounds like to me.

Please leave a comment.

Friday, October 30, 2009

150-Year Sentence for Shooting

The Chicago Tribune reports on the harsh sentence of a man who killed the wrong person in a shooting incident.

A Chicago man was sentenced to 150 years in prison Wednesday for fatally shooting an honor student in her Englewood home in 2006 while firing at two rivals outside.

Carail Weeks, 28, was convicted last month of the murder of Starkesia Reed and the attempted murder of two other men. Reed, 14, an honor student at Harper High School, was killed when Weeks fired an AK-47-style rifle at the men and missed. One of the bullets crashed through the window of Reed's family's home and struck her in the head as she peered outside.

Weeks maintains he is innocent of the teen's murder.

Would this be one of those cases that cries out for the Assault Weapons Ban? Isn't it possible to describe the AK-47 in such a way that it cannot be confused with other weapons, ones used for hunting for example? Is the failure to come up with a proper definition of an "assault weapon" the whole problem? Or is the problem that pro-gun folks don't want any bans on weapons and therefore won't accept any definition?

What do you think about the sentence? Is it a little harsh? After all the shooter did not intend to kill the girl, in fact he proclaims his innocence. I imagine the investigators ensured the bullet that struck the girl came from the gun in question and not from another wild shot in the neighborhood. But still, it was not intentional. Even if you start with a maximum sentence of death, which I do not, and work your way down, how can you justify a sentence of 150 years for attempted murder and an accidental death?

I admit, I'm soft on criminals and hard on lawful gun owners.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Shoots Friend in Head: "Just Stupidity"

The Tribune reports on an accident in Colarado in which one friend shot another in the head.

A Greeley man who said he accidentally shot his friend in the head while they were checking fantasy football scores Sunday has been charged with second-degree assault and attempted manslaughter by the Weld District Attorney's Office.

The incident occurred Sunday evening in northwest Greeley, and Robert Knorr, 28, was shot with a handgun. The bullet entered the back of his head, went through the left side of his jaw and exited just below the lips on the right side of his face. He was taken to North Colorado Medical Center, then to a Denver hospital. His condition was not available Wednesday, but the injury was not life-threatening.

This unfortunate incident took place in gun-friendly Colorado. Do you think it's so rare that gun owners get drunk and do stupid things with their guns? Wouldn't it be true that as the number of guns in the country increases, the numbers of incidents like this will too?

On Wednesday, the district attorney's office officially filed the assault and attempted manslaughter charges against Pollard, in addition to felony menacing and prohibited use of a weapon. The weapon charge is due to Pollard being legally drunk and having a gun in his possession.

Does that mean that any gun owner who ever gets legally drunk while in possession of his gun is a criminal? I suppose all the guys who claim to never have seen a shot-up road sign will also claim to never have drunk enough to break this law either. What do you think?

My idea is the world is not divided into two neat and separate groups, good guys and bad guys. I can better imagine it as good guys, bad guys and people in the middle who are a little of both. I call that the gray area. My point is people in the gray area should not have guns, even if they've not yet been convicted of any felonies. The guys who get good and drunk once in a while, or frequently, the guys who shoot up road signs whenever they get the chance, the guys who can't control their tempers with their wives and kids. I think everyone knows what I call these people.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Where's the Outrage?

Where's the outrage is the question raised by our frequent commenter Fishy Jay. It came in an e-mail, copied and pasted here.

When the “guns in national parks” bill passed, many anti-gunowner columnists were outraged (outraged!) that it was as an amendment to a credit card bill. They huffed and they puffed about how awfully unrelated it was.

Now, expansion of “hate crimes” to include sexual orientation is about to pass…as an amendment to a military spending bill.

Now, one’s position on guns in national parks does not dictate or even indicate a certain position an hate crimes & sexual orientation – however, one might expect those who were so outraged by “guns in national parks” as an amendment to a credit card bill to now also be outraged by hate crimes & sexual orientation as an amendment to a military spending bill.

Strange…where’s that outrage?

I think Jay has a good point. I've seen nothing at all about this until today when Mud_Rake posted on it. Muddy had a slightly different tack on the issue, not really focusing on the fact that it was attached to a larger and unrelated bill.

Theys already passing bills says I can't carry but two weapons at a time, too! More damned taxes ever time I turn around, also. Damned socialist government, just like Hitler as well etc..

Now I got to be nice to them homos, also.

Unfortunately some folks fail to appreciate his sense of humor. You know, those contentious types who never want to give an inch. In any case, what about the observation of Fishy Jay?

What's your opinion? Was there much outrage at the fact that the "guns in parks" bill was tacked on to the credit card bill? I remember reading that many times; I suppose that counts as outrage. I personally never got too excited about that aspect of it myself.

Is it a fair comparison that the "sexual orientation / hate crimes" bill was tacked on to a military spending bill? Do you agree that the same folks who complained about the one should complain about the other? Or should liberals complain about the gun bill and conservatives complain about the sexual orientation bill? But, how would that work? That would be even harder than getting people to admit to being racists. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Criminal Behavior with Guns

This is an example of criminal behavior with guns. Are the folks who do stuff like this to be considered criminals like inner-city murderers? No, of course not. Yet, some of our commenters are big supporters of the all-or-nothing theory of criminal justice. They say it's the letter of the law that counts. I don't believe it's quite that black and white. I say there's a big gray area among the lawful gun owners and many of the folks who shoot up road signs are in it.

What's your opinion?

From Las Vegas to Mexico

The Las Vegas Sun reports on an investigation by the ATF tying Las Vegas gun shops to the Mexican drug wars. WARNING: the story contains the following quote, "Nationally, more than 90 percent of the guns seized..." Please disregard.

The agents placed Claudio Caesar “Zorra” Penunuri at the center of a gun smuggling ring from here to Southern California and then south into Mexico. He provided the more than $100,000 in cash to purchase 28 rifles and pistols from Las Vegas gun dealers, and the smuggling routes to ship them illegally into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels.

His case is a capstone to a burgeoning effort by local ATF agents as part of a two-year national program launched in Washington called Project Gunrunner. Its aim: Stem the flow of illegal U.S. guns into Mexico and bring down violence along the Rio Grande, where the cartels are warring over new drug enterprises in this country.

What do you think it means? Do you think in Las Vegas, and in California in spite of their laws, there are a number of gun shops known to be "user friendly," places where straw purchases and clearly questionable transactions can take place? These would be licensed gun dealers who agree with AztecRed who said "only children and Democrats believe in the spirit of the law." I suppose the type of gun dealer I'm talking about protest vehemently that he's not doing anything illegal. What do you think?

And of course there are the good guys.

Local gun dealers said they are aware of increased government enforcement, and Bob Irwin, owner of The Gun Store, said “the problem is more noticeable now. I hope they put them away for quite awhile.”

Irwin described a recent case in which his staff notified ATF that a customer was using a fake ID. Agents allowed the store to sell the gun — after they placed a monitoring device on the weapon. “Then they followed the gun to the border and arrested him just before he went across,” Irwin said.

“So we try to help,” Irwin said. “We have no interest in helping drug cartels shoot each other.”

What's your opinion? Do you think the ATF is moving in the right direction with these efforts? Is it just a case of "a few bad apples?"

Please leave a comment.

Holding Gun Owners Responsible

Opposing Views published an article by Daniel W. Webster which, at first glance, I thought I'd written myself.

Gun Owners & Sellers Need to be Held Accountable to Save Lives

The article itself doesn't seem nearly as contentious as the title suggests. Dr. Webster describes a process by which we might move from a cultural debate to a policy debate.

A policy debate would start from generally agreed-upon goals -- and what I believe is an almost universally agreed-upon goal: Dangerous people shouldn't have guns. We must keep saying that and using evidence to back it up.

If we start from that premise and move to specific policies, we can focus on what measures can work. What is the alternative?

Which side is preventing this, do you think? I believe both sides accuse the other of being unreasonable and uncompromising. What do you think? Which is most at fault.

Here's the accountability part, speaking about the Johns Hopkins studies:

These findings debunk the notion that retailers have no role on this issue. We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do. The same thing applies to private sellers of firearms. States that regulate private sellers have significantly less gun trafficking than those that do not regulate gun transactions.

What do you think about that? Is it fair to place more focus on gun sellers? Isn't that where it often goes wrong?

Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Jackie Kuhls on Assault Weapons

Via Protest Easy Guns. What do you think about her definition? What do you think about gun manufacturers who modified weapons to meet the letter of the law but were clearly violating its spirit?

Jackie Kuhls on the Gun Show Loophole

Via Protest Easy Guns. What do you think of her definitions? What could possibly motivate someone to oppose closing the gun show loophole?

MAIG Ad Campaign

Via Protest Easy Guns. If so many are in agreement, why do you think nothing is being done about this?

15-Year-Old to be Charged as a Juvenile

We discussed the story at the time when Kaleb Eulls tackled the gun-wielding girl on a school bus and became a national hero. Now the story is back in the news because it's been decided that the girl, now 15, should be charged as a juvenile. From

YAZOO COUNTY, MS (WLBT) - The case of a 15 year old taking a gun on a school bus in Yazoo County, Mississippi will be handled in youth court.

District Attorney James Powell said he carefully studied the video tape of the incident, from a school bus camera and he does not see that the child actually intended to harm anybody.

"I think it is best handled in Youth Court," said Powell.

Powell said the sheriff's department told him there was not actually a bullet in the chamber of the .380 semi automatic pistol, although the girl had put a clip of bullets into the weapon.

Kaleb Eulls a star football player made national news by tackling the 15 year old and disarming her.

Do you wonder, like I do, where the gun came from? Do you wonder if her daddy taught her to play with guns? That's what I wonder. Maybe she'd had all the proper upbringing you could hope for and turned out bad anyway. What do you think?

What's your opinion? Should the judge and the courts be concerned with the home life of juvenile defendants? Would their upbringing be considered a mitigating circumstance?

Does the fact that the gun was unloaded lessen her culpability? Is there anyone who thinks she should be tried as an adult?

Please leave a comment.

13-Year-Old Brings Gun to School

The Star Telegram reports on the Grand Prairie eighth-grader who was arrested for bringing a gun to school.

Police arrested a 13-year-old student for bringing a loaded gun to Jackson Middle School.

The eighth-grader brought the gun to campus on Thursday and showed a friend, police said.

The friend told his parents and the friend’s mother reported what she heard to school administrators on Friday, according to police.

The gun, which belonged to the student’s uncle, was found in the boy’s locker during a search on Friday, a school spokesman said.

The boy told a police officer that he brought the gun to school so he could defend a friend who was supposed to get in a fight, police said.

The student will be attending alternative campuses for the next 180 days and will not be returning to Jackson Middle School, said Sam Buchmeyer, school district spokesman.

The student faces a charge of bringing a weapon into a prohibited place, said Det. John Brimmer, police spokesman.

It was not clear on Tuesday whether the student was still being detained in a juvenile facility or whether he had been released to his parents, according to authorities.

I say arrest the uncle, arrest the father and maybe the whole family. The charge should be child abuse. We're not talking about a 13-year-old gang member from Baltimore. We're talking about a typical kid in Texas whose upbringing has led him to this: when there's a problem you borrow uncle's gun as the solution. What if legitimate gun owners start taking responsibility for the faulty message they transmit to their kids, guns are the answer, meet violence or the threat thereof with greater and swifter violence.

This boy is a good example. He's absorbed the lesson well. His friend was scheduled for a fist-fight, so he brings a gun along. Something's very wrong with that, and I don't think he's completely to blame.

What's your opinion? I don't deny the boy should be punished in some way for having taken the gun to school, but do you think this is a case of shared responsibility? Do you think the uncle and other family members share in this?

Please leave a comment.

Newark Gun Buy-Back reports on Mayor Cory Booker's announcement of a gun buy-back to be held on November 11th and 12th, which is to be only part of Newark's efforts at fighting gun violence.

When Newark Detectives Raul Diaz and Donald Stabile arrive at a fatal shooting scene, they will sidestep the central investigation, leaving that to homicide detectives, and instead zero in on the gun.

In a deeper analysis than has been done previously, they will look at the weapon’s history, origin and who has used it -- all as part of a new, two-prong strategy that includes gun buy backs to reduce shooting violence in the city.

"Over the last three years, we have put a strong foundation for the results we have now," Newark Mayor Cory Booker said at a press conference today, where he announced the strategy with Police Director Garry McCarthy and officials from the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office and the Essex County Sheriff’s Office. "Now we are taking it to the next level."

Through these deeper investigations, detectives will be better able to figure out gun trafficking patterns and potentially stop the flow of weapons into the city, McCarthy said. They will also identify crime-prone areas in the city and people who have a history of weapons violence.

McCarthy also added that the police department is forming a database with profiles on each gun confiscated. Backing up the investigators will be stiffer state penalties against people who use and illegally sell guns, Booker said

It's interesting that the Mayor and Police Chief feel it's a good strategy to "zero in on the gun." Doesn't that make sense? Isn't it smart to attempt to gather information on weapons seized in order to better understand where they come from and how to stop them?

What about the Newark Police "forming a database?" Isn't that a sad comment on the state of gun control vs. gun rights in America that a local police department has to create their own database of information? Shouldn't this kind of information be available nation-wide? What are lawful gun owners so afraid of that they would oppose such measures?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The GOP is Falling Apart

Think Progress reports on a fascinating incident at a South Florida shooting range.

Earlier this month, the South Florida-based Southeast Broward Republican Club held an event at a gun range where targets included silhouettes of Muslim stereotypes and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). At the gathering, Wasserman Schultz’s GOP competitor fired at a full-body silhouette with ‘DWS’ written next to its head.” The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that the Republican activist Ed Napolitano, who was in charge of the club, has resigned from all his party positions, saying he was “pushed to quit”:

While he’s stepping away from the party, Napolitano said today he’s not ending his political activism. “I’m not going to be going away. You’re still going to see me around.”

He expressed frustration with Republican Party leadership, which he said doesn’t stand by and defend volunteer Republican activists – like himself – when they’re attacked.

“The leadership in the Republican Party is lacking in courage, and they do not stand by their people,” Napolitano said. “We’re volunteers. We volunteer our time and we volunteer our money. They’re there to facilitate us. We’re not there to facilitate them. They act like we’re their servants.”

The Florida Republican Party says it didn’t call on Napolitano to resign. Although Napolitano has apologized to Wasserman Schultz for the incident, Lowry has not.

What's your opinion? Is that just good clean fun for the boys at the shooting range? Is that a fairly common practice, putting images on the targets the way people often do with dart boards?

What do you think about Napolitano reaction? Do you think there's a growing discontent among moderate Republicans? Do you think as the polarization of the parties continues, more Republicans are lost than Democrats converted?

What about the future of the Republican Party. Here's what one commenter, Lux, had to say:

I’m making my prediction now…

2012 – Obama Repeat.. Repubs make their worst showing ever..

2016 – Democrats win easily.. the distance between them and the GOP largely increased by the first very strong showing of an independent — I predict a third party receiving 18% of the popular vote..

2020 – In a heated race – An independent wins the election.. the GOP reduced to a category we now reserve for the libertarian/Green parties – a ‘wasted vote’

Please leave a comment.

Collision by Christopher Hitchens published an article by Christopher Hitchens touting his new DVD and book.

This week sees the opening on various cinema marquees of the film Collision: a buddy-and-road movie featuring last year's debates between Pastor Douglas Wilson, who is a senior fellow at New St. Andrew's College, and your humble servant. (If I may be forgiven, it's also available on DVD, and you can buy our little book of exchanges, Is Christianity Good for the World?)

Mr. Hitchens, a leader in modern atheism, has made a career in recent years debating religious conservatives.

I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Now that's a fascinating observation. What do you think? Do most liberals have the wrong impression of these religious right-winger?

He closes with this:

...the secular movement in the United States is acquiring a confidence that it has not known in years, while many of those who put their faith in revelation and prophecy and prayer are feeling the need to give an account of themselves. This is a wholly good development, and it is part of the pluralism and polycentrism that distinguish the sort of society that we have to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

When he says "secular," does he mean atheistic? is it possible to be described as secular without going all the way into atheism? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Even More on Fox News

From the Liberal Viewer.

It really is amazing that some people insist Fox is not biased. The other day we heard them claiming there's a big difference between the opinion sections and the news sections.

Illegal Guns in Canada reports on the illegal handguns that have been taken off the streets in their area of Canada.

The Uzi submachine gun can spew hundreds of rounds per minute. The Glock handgun, capable of firing up to 33 bullets from a single magazine. The tiny Beretta pistol with silencer delivers noiseless death.

These lethal weapons and others were recently and illegally in the hands of criminals. Wednesday, the seized weapons were neatly and safely displayed as part of a police services board presentation on illegal firearms and weapons in our neighbourhoods.

The cache represents some of the 68 hand guns seized in 2007, the 41 last year and the 56 to date this year.

As for illegal long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, police took 188 of them off York streets last year.

This year, the tally is 196.

There's nothing like a little sensationalism when talking about guns I always say. I like that "noiseless death." But the point is well taken, guns are being removed from the streets.

The Canadians feel it's popular culture that glamorizes guns, entertainers, rappers and the like. This combined with the lucrative business of gun running, makes for a serious problem.

A legal standard 9mm pistol sells for approximately $500.

On the street, the same unlicensed weapon fetches up to eight times the price.

Do you think they're exaggerating? If those numbers are true, it's no wonder there's a thriving gun smuggling underworld. And where do you suppose those guns are smuggled from?

Of the 3.65 million firearms produced in the United States in 2008, hundreds are smuggled into Canada each year.

Of the 253,000 handguns and more than two million rifles and shotguns legally registered in Ontario, 16,000 of the former and 70,000 of the latter are in York Region.

Instead of "hundreds," wouldn't you think it's more like thousands or tens of thousands. Why not just call it 90% and get it over with?

Here's a shocker:

Firearms kill more within the 15 to 24 demographic than cancer, drowning and falls combined.

What's your opinion? I can see that cancer might not kill too many in that age bracket, but I always thought falls and drownings did. Does this sound like a credible statistic to you?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Monday, October 26, 2009

More on Fox News

Do you think it's a fair criticism of the White House that they're failing to differentiate between the opinion segments and the news segments on Fox News?

Is Fox News the "Voice of the Opposition?" Wouldn't that indicate the White House is right in saying Fox News is not a legitimate news show?

The Biggest Gangster

Meet Semion Mogilevich.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

I Repeat, Guns Are Bad News for Women

The Violence Policy Center came out with a report entitled, When Men Murder Women; An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data. This information perfectly supports what I presented in my post entitled Guns and Women but has come to be known as "guns are bad news for women."

Opening remarks on page 1.

One federal study on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined, concluding that “the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence].

From page 8.

In 2007, the homicide rate among female victims murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents nationally was 1.30 per 100,000. For that year, Louisiana ranked first as the state with the highest homicide rate among female victims killed by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents. Its rate of 2.53 per 100,000 was nearly double the national average. Louisiana was followed by Alaska (2.44 per 100,000) and Wyoming (2.33 per 100,000).

There's a table providing a more extensive listing, but you already know what it looks like. How can the pro-gun crowd deny the connection between lax gun laws, the prevalence of guns in the home and gun violence? And these statistics practically eliminate the gangs and drug killings. These are about normal gun owners who kill their female partners, you know the guys I've always been saying should never have had guns in the first place.

What's your opinion? Is this entire study suspect because it comes from the VPC folks? Is there another way to explain why states like Louisiana and Oklahoma have so much more lethal domestic violence than New Jersey and New York? Please tell us.

Feel free to leave a comment.

Store Clerk Disarms Robbers

The New York Post reports on a thwarted robbery on Long Island. You can view the wonderful video on their site.

The hero is named Mustafa Yakupoglu.

"This is the third time for me, but this time was different. I was not scared."

A native of Turkey, Yakupoglu moved to America in 1995 and worked at a gas station in Huntington Station that was robbed twice.

But his inner Charles Bronson stayed hidden during those stick-ups, and he handed over cash without resisting.

"I was new to this country back then," he said. "I couldn't speak the language. I couldn't speak English.

"Now I can speak."

What do you think of his actions? Was he foolish or heroic? One thing I noticed is he didn't shoot them in the back as they were fleeing. For that restraint I give him credit.

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Heavily Armed London Police

Security Manaagement reports on the arming up of London street cops.

Some London neighborhoods are set to look a little more like Northern Ireland as elite paramilitary police hit the streets of specific neighborhoods marked by high levels of drug-related gang violence.

About 20 officers from the Metropolitan Police's CO19 branch, the English equivalent of American SWAT Teams, will increasingly patrol "no go" zones where rival Turkish gangs have engaged in violent shootouts recently. The officers, some on motorbikes, will conduct weapon sweeps on individuals.

Drugs and violence and obviously guns are coming into London. It seems perfectly logical that the police need to meet the threat with increased firepower.

London has recently seen a significant jump in gun crimes with 1,736 gun crimes reported in between April and September—a 17 percent increase over last year. On average, there are 50 to 60 shooting deaths a year in England and Wales, according to the AP.

Do you think the increase in gun crime in spite of strict gun control laws proves those laws do not work? That's the pro-gun argument, isn't it? I say it's not necessarily so. If gun availability increased and we somehow could ensure that none of the other factors changed, then the argument might make sense, but I'm afraid that's not the case.

Often I'm accused of focusing only on the gun to the exclusion of all else, an accusation I deny. I'm well aware of the other factors involved in a violent society. Ironically, the pro-gun argument that says Chicago or Newark or London has gun violence in spite of their laws, which proves those laws don't work, pretends that gun availability is the only factor. In other words, when convenient the gun rights crowd does the same thing they accuse me of.

I ask you this, about the gun violence in London, about the suicide rate in Japan, about Chicago and Newark, if somehow we could immediately flood those places with handguns, do you think there'd be more violence or less? Do you think the violence would increase in lethality in such a case? This is how common sense and reason can give you the answer when conflicting statistics often cannot.

What's your opinion? What do you think about the opposition to London's decision? They feel it violates the tenets of English policing, which is traditionally done by unarmed officers on foot patrol. Another concern is "how the unit would handle such powerful weaponry on crowded city streets." That's a good question, isn't it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.