O'Reilly on the Katrina Gun Confiscations

"They disarmed Americans over some bad weather." I offer this quote to Zorro as another example of what I'm talking about. Gun rights folks are the worst at exaggerating and spinning.

About the video, though, I found it over at the fascinating site of Fait of the World. The host of that site, a self-proclaimed Threeper, had this to say.

In case you anti-freedom fucks, both Right and Left, can’t understand this, the government did not give those rights and cannot take them away. Please don’t attempt to do so. It will be resisted with brute force in this home.

Now that's the tough talk I've come to know and love from these guys. What I don't understand is the need some of them have to continually talk like this. At the mere mention of gun banning or gun confiscation, often when it is not even mentioned, they spout off with this adolescent school-yard rhetoric. It's truly fascinating.

More fascinating still, is that I have to agree with Bill O'Reilly. I never thought the day would come, but in this O'Reilly segment I think he made good points. The so-called Katrina gun confiscations have been so often touted as examples of what the evil government does to poor gun owners, like the little old lady in that video, that many have come to believe their own nonsense.

The truth is what O'Reilly said, there was a state of emergency and the local government was blanketing all citizens in order to control the looters and other criminals. The gun rights folks keep spinning that video in order to distort what really happened.

O'Reilly asked about riots like they had in the 60s. Curfews were implemented, the right to assemble was suspended. Were these also examples of "illegal" measures on the part of the government? I don't think so. And I don't think one has to be a government worshipping sheep to feel that way. One of the purposes of government is to keep order in extreme emergency situations, or is that wrong? Are the rough and rugged individualists going to insist on handling everything themselves in every situation with their home arsenals?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sabre Defense Industries

The Nashville Business Journal reports on the investigation of a gun manufacturer.

Nashville-based gun manufacturer Sabre Defence Industries issued a statement late yesterday saying it is cooperating with federal agents who are investigating “potential criminal misuse of certain non-saleable firearms” manufactured by the company and purchased by Sabre employees.

“Sabre has received information that employee(s) involved in inventory control may have obtained and re-sold some items without appropriate licenses,” reads the company’s statement. “Sabre is and has been cooperating with federal agents in this investigation.”

The company had an FFL license, just like the guy in your local gun shop. And just like many local gun shops, Sabre Defense turned out to be the source of gun flow into the criminal world.

What's your opinion? Is there not enough oversight? Is there too much wiggle-room for these felons masquerading as legitimate employees making money on the side?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Military Industrial Complex

Angry Bear wrote a wonderful post about the real puppet masters.

The impact of militarization is huge, and the long-term wars we are engaged in currently, and their high costs, surely impact our economy. Surely the military-industrial complex and its demands on the tax system (and its potential threats to our democratic institutions) are viable topics at ataxingmatter, as part of the discussion of tax policy and institutional sustainability.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Common Sense in Finland

The Associated Press reports on the proposed gun ban in Finland.

A Finnish government commission on Wednesday proposed a ban on semiautomatic handguns after two school shootings in recent years left 20 people dead.

The ban, which needs parliamentary approval, would sharply reduce the number of legal weapons in a country that ranks among the world's top five in civilian gun ownership.

"We've had a very weapon-friendly culture," commission chairman Pekka Sauri said. "In carrying out the proposals we would, of course, pay compensation to anyone who turns in weapons."

The Nordic nation of 5.3 million has 650,000 licensed gun owners. Of some 250,000 handguns, more than 200,000 are semiautomatic, according to Sauri.

The recommendation came in a report on an attack in September 2008, when a 22-year-old gunman killed nine fellow students and a teacher before shooting himself at a vocational high school in Kauhajoki, western Finland.

Less than a year earlier, a teenage student fatally shot eight people and himself at Jokela High School in Tuusula, near the capital, Helsinki.

We've discussed some of the Finnish gun violence here and here. What's your opinion? Is the suggestion to ban handguns a ridiculous and emotional response to these types of incidents? Are the people in Finland who want this deluded by their fear of inanimate objects?

I don't think so. In a small country, perhaps what would be untenable in the United States as a solution might be exactly what they need. In spite of all the pro-gun claims to the contrary, gun availability plays a significant role in the amount and the gravity of violence for the simple reason that the gun is the most efficient killing tool.

An interesting thing about the Finland situation is the pro-gun folks over there don't have the trumped-up justification their American counterparts have. There's no 2nd Amendment there.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Bad News in Virginia

The Washington Post reports on the lifting of the Virginia one-gun-a-month restriction.

IN A RARE moment of gun law sanity, Virginia enacted a bill 17 years ago limiting the purchase of handguns to one a month. Almost immediately, the numbers of guns traced to Virginia that were used in crimes in the Northeast, particularly in New York, dropped sharply. Now, thanks to Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, a Prince William County Republican who is pushing to repeal the law, the Old Dominion may regain the dubious distinction of being a leading arsenal for criminals. Mr. Lingamfelter's measure cleared the House of Delegates in Richmond this week and is headed for the state Senate. It was backed mainly by House Republicans, for whom the purchase of a dozen handguns annually is apparently not enough.

I don't think anyone expects this to be blocked in the Senate. But what's the real reason behind this? Isn't it an indisputable and obvious fact that straw purchasers who buy handguns which go directly into the black market should be limited in their efforts? Wouldn't the repealing of this law guarantee a major increase in those trafficked guns? So, why are gun owners so adamant about this?

My idea is that for gun rights advocates this as a small victory in what they see as a big war. They've lost the ability to see reason and common sense. The Washington Post said it right, calling this law a "rare moment in gun law sanity."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Shooter Shop in Philadelphia

The Coalition for Peace Action is sponsoring a prayer vigil tomorrow in front of an infamous Philadelphia gun shop.

I have learned how guns flow from legal gun shops through gun traffickers to people who can’t legally own weapons. Somebody has to DO something! I have learned how cheap “dirty” guns end up in the pockets of teenagers and turn arguments into unintended murders and murderers. Somebody has to DO something! I have learned about the “gun rights” lobby opposition to rational legislation to slow the flood of illegal weapons. For God’s sake, somebody has to DO something!

The Shooter Shop in North Philadelphia has been among the top gun shops in the entire country in having guns it sold recovered from crime by law enforcement. According to ATF, this is a strong indicator of being a source of illegal gun trafficking. Heeding God’s Call has asked the Shooter Shop to sign the Code of Conduct and adopt these responsible practices to save lives by reducing straw purchases. So far, the Shooter Shop has refused, preferring instead to look the other way and enjoy the profits.

What these good Christian folks are asking "the owner and employees of the Shooter Shop and all gun shop owners in the United States [is] that they do everything in their power to reduce/eliminate the practice of straw purchasing, and refuse to profit from the death-dealing sale of illegal handguns."

What's your opinion? Are they already doing "everything in their power?"

Please leave a comment.

More Guns - Less Gun Violence

The Times News published an article which basically supports the theory that more guns means less gun violence. FishyJay sent me the link with the following remark:

In the polarizing debate about gun control, one does not often encounter a moderate voice of reason. I find this editorial from the The Kingsport (TN) Times-News to be a rare example of such.

I can easily see why he would consider this article "a moderate voice of reason."

According to liberals, the huge increase in gun purchases that came as a consequence of Obama’s election were certain to result in a commensurate spike in gun violence. Despite these repeated predictions, the frenzy of gun violence that was supposed to erupt never occurred. In fact, gun violence has decreased.

Indeed, the liberal mantra that more guns equals more crime has run headlong into some inconvenient facts.

My response to this argument has been that it's still early days. But I admit it is compelling. I'm not sure if John Lott invented it but his name comes to mind.

What's your opinion? Is the spike in gun and ammo sales only one year ago combined with statistics that say gun violence is down enough to conclude the pro-gun crowd was right? Or, do these trends need to stand the test of time?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment?