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." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdI_vBURwcM)

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.

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.

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.