Saturday, June 12, 2010

The Greatest Vietnam Movie Ever

Youtube has the embedding disabled, so go have a look. Is it the greatest one or what?

Open Carry - Pro and Con

The Salt Lake Tribune published two articles about open carry, one in favor by H. Sterling Burnett and one opposed by Josh Sugarmann.

It was interesting to see a juxtaposition of the two opinions. Striving, as always, to put my personal opinions aside and be as open minded as possible, what I noticed in Burnett's article were some of the typical pro-gun exaggerations, for example this one.

liberal bloggers were nearly apoplectic that some dared to bear arms

Why is it necessary to talk like that? Is it for emphasis? He certainly can't mean it literally.

And how about this old standard:

After all, millions of people openly bear firearms in public in hunting fields, at firing ranges and at gun shows every week, except for exceedingly rare accidents, few if any injuries result.

This "few if any" goes beyond the usual argument that the tiny percentage of people injured with guns compared to the total number of guns in the country does not justify additional laws. This "few if any" is simply stated, untrue. There have been some injuries.

Mr. Sugarmann, on the other hand, was able to control himself enough to avoid ridiculous exaggerations and flat-out lies.

At a "Restore the Constitution Rally" held in April outside the nation's capital, one speaker warned the tiny crowd of fellow "patriots" of those "pushing the country toward civil war" and declared "they should stop before somebody gets hurt." In May, white supremacists openly carried guns at a small counter-event to a peaceful protest of Arizona's new immigration law. One armed protester, who characterized Hitler as a great white civil rights leader, asked, "Where on the planet is there one country that's for white people? There's not. See, we have nowhere to go."

Recently released federal statistics show, as they have historically, that states with high rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun-related death. For 2007, the most recent year available, gun-loving Louisiana, Mississippi and Alaska led the nation in overall gun-death rates.

The same federal data also show that in states where gun ownership is low and exposure to firearms limited, overall gun-death rates are far lower. That same year, Hawaii had the lowest gun-death rate in the nation followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York. Louisiana's overall gun death rate of 19.87 per 100,000 was seven times higher than Hawaii's rate of 2.82 per 100,000.

When the issue is life and death, feelings should never trump facts -- even when there's an armed mob arguing otherwise.

What's your opinion? Can you be objective enough to compare these two writers' styles and come up with an opinion?

Please leave a comment.

The Other Hardest Working Gun Blogger

When I was writing about Linoge before, I'd momentarily forgotten about John Lott. Any crown which Linoge would earn as hardest working might have to be shared. published an opinion piece, one of those fair and balanced ones, by Prof. Lott. In it, he incredibly makes a case for Europe being more gun-violent than the United States. You have to read it to believe it.

The appeal I made about Linoge in the other post won't be necessary in this case, however.

Please, I'm looking for one pro-gun voice to admit that Linoge is a bit of a bullshitter.

How often we've heard John Lott criticized, even by his own. But what do you think about this op-ed? One thing came to my mind is how often the pro-gun crowd will accuse us of "dancing in the blood" of the victims. And, how often will they accuse us of being hypocrites.

For folks who claim to have the Bible as well as the Constitution on their side, plus all that "inalienable rights" and "natural rights" business, why do they have to resort to so much tricky nonsense?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Hardest Working Gun Blogger

Linoge certainly puts in the effort, I'll say that. A number of times he's written some of the longest comments I've ever seen in response to something I've said. But nothing compares to this.

You may have to go over to his place to see it properly, but you need to go there anyway to read his unbelievably prolix explanation.

When you get to the part about y = -3E-42x6 + 4E-33x5 – 2E-24x4 + 5E-16x3 – 7E-08x2 + 5.3301x – 2E+08, and you're still with him, my hat's off to ya.

In describing the changes between last year's chart and this updated one, twice Linoge assured us that any change "does not affect the accuracy of the data." I'm not sure why it was necessary to repeat that. I don't doubt his data or his honesty. I only doubt his conclusions.

Conclusions: Obviously, both the population of America and the number of firearms in America have been increasing over the past 26 years. Additionally, the number of firearms has been, very slightly, increasing faster than the population.

On the other hand, firearm-related deaths have declined, despite a significant bump in the early 1990s. Those deaths have very slowly started increasing again in the past five years, but at a rate roughly commensurate with the population’s.

And on the third hand, the rate of firearm deaths in relation to both population and number of firearms has been steadily decreasing (with a few bumps, here and there) over the course of the 26 years graphed.

This post graphically demonstrates that the hypothesis that more firearms result in more firearm-related deaths is historically and demonstrably false.

Does anyone else have a problem with that? Please, I'm looking for one pro-gun voice to admit that Linoge is a bit of a bullshitter. I know I risk his ferocious indignation for saying that, as well as that of his legion of fanboys, but I don't know how else to say it.

Can I hear an "aye" from just one pro-gunner?

The Death Penalty in Utah

The Desert News reports on the newest poll showing overwhelming support for the death penalty, this one from Utah.

In the course of seven years, Utahns' support for the death penalty has not waned.

Results from a Deseret News-KSL poll conducted this week show that 79 percent of Utahns either strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty. The poll, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, found that only 16 percent oppose executions.

The poll results mirror a 2003 survey that asked Utahns the same question. In that Deseret News poll, 78 percent favored the death penalty and 17 percent opposed it. Because of the built-in margin of error, the results were basically identical.

The number of Utahns who favor the death penalty is 15 percentage points higher than the rest of the nation, according to a 2008 Gallup poll that showed 64 percent of Americans favor capital punishment.

Is that a Mormon thing? Do you think capital punishment is more clearly condoned in the Book of Mormon than it is in the Bible? As we know, biased people like Linoge and Bob S. can justify all kinds of nonsense using the bible, but these percentages in Utah must come from somewhere.

What's your opinion? Why do they favor the death penalty so much in Utah?

Please leave a comment.

O.J. Simpson's Appeal

Finally we're seeing some progress on what I predicted at the time of his sentencing; I'm referring to the ridiculously excessive sentence for trumped-up charges like kidnapping.

After his sentencing, I predicted the whole thing will be overturned in a year or so. General opinion of O.J. is such that, by spending a year or two in jail for this nonsense the public blood-lust will have been appeased, but in America a sentence like this cannot stand in such a high profile case.

That "in America" bit sounds a little optimistic, but we'll see.

The Christian Science Monitor reports.

O.J. Simpson's lawyer told a panel of Nevada Supreme Court justices Friday that the former football star's conviction in a gunpoint hotel room heist amounted to prejudicial "payback" for Simpson's 1994 double-murder acquittal.

"This was not a search for truth but became a search for redemption," attorney Yale Galanter said as he pleaded for the court panel to overturn Simpson's conviction and grant a new trial in the September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.

Justices Mark Gibbons, Michael Cherry and Nancy Saitta won't make an immediate ruling. A decision is expected later this year.

What's your opinion? Should he get a new trial?

Please leave a comment.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Florida - Lax Gun Laws and Heavy Prison Sentences

From our friends at Ohh Shoot.

Mother and son charged in boy's shooting death

A Florida woman and her 14-year-old son have been charged in the shooting death of a 13-year-old boy. According to police reports the two boys were home from school when Jeff Dilworth went and got his mother's 9mm handgun from her bedroom nightstand and showed it to his friend, Daniel Torres. Torres removed the magazine and Dilworth, thinking the gun was unloaded, pulled the trigger. Tragically, a bullet remaining in the chamber fired, striking young Torres in the head, killing him.

14-year-old Dilworth is being charged as an adult. He faces a charge of manslaughter with a possible sentence of up to 30 years.

Because Florida law requires gun owners to prevent children from gaining access to firearms and requires firearms to be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock, Dilworth's mother Shari Edwards, 50, is charged with culpable negligence, a felony charge that carries a maximum five-year sentence.

Mother and son are expected to appear in bond court together.

Ohh shoot

The thing that kills me about Florida is their gun friendly culture combined with the law-and-order hard line. Charging a 14-year-old as an adult is an abomination, especially when the shooting was unintentional.

At least they arrested the mother too, that's something.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Coffee Spill

Thanks to The Brad Blog and dedicated to Caleb.

Tennessee Gun Laws

KnoxNews reports on the situation in Tennessee.

The state House voted Friday night to override Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto of the latest bill that would allow holders of gun-carry permits to take their weapons inside any restaurant selling alcohol - although individual restaurant owners could still ban guns on their property, and permit holders can't drink while carrying. The vote, which followed an earlier override by the state Senate, allows the bill to become law.

The survey released last week by the Virginia-based Violence Policy Center ranks Tennessee in seventh place nationally for gun-related deaths, at a rate of 15.03 per 100,000 people. That's above a national average of about 10 gun deaths per 100,000, according to the survey.

Tennessee's household gun ownership rate is about 46 percent, the VPC estimates.

Louisiana topped the list, with a death rate of 19.87 per 100,000 and a household gun ownership rate of 45.6 percent. Hawaii came in last, with a death rate of 2.82 per 100,000 and a household gun ownership rate of 9.7 percent.

The VPC, which endorses banning handguns, relied on statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for causes of death in 2007, the most recent year available. The group says the numbers prove more guns mean more danger to the average person - and that relaxing restrictions on guns in public places just adds to the danger.

I don't know what could be more transparent. In the States where you've got the most guns you've got the most gun deaths. The article points out that instead of recognizing this, the State of Tennessee is actually moving in the other direction with that override vote of the governor's veto.

What's your opinion? If guns in the hands of law-abiding gun owners make us safer, why do the states with more guns have the worst stats?

Please leave a comment.

Dear Abby

From the Kansas City Dear Abby:

DEAR ABBY: My parents told me that a member of their congregation carries a licensed gun when he’s in church. He is not a law enforcement officer or a private security guard but keeps the gun on him “for protection.” When I asked what the pastor has to say about this, I was told, “He doesn’t know or can’t do anything about it.”

I suggested that Mom and Dad speak to the congregation board of directors because they are legally and financially responsible for the church. They refused, even though they are not happy about this gun issue.

My parents have a long history of complaining about things but doing nothing to resolve them. I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence. If he’s the target of an assassination, the killer might shoot the wrong person. I will not set foot in the church as long as that man is there.

I’m not sure what bothers me more — that this man is packing heat or that my parents have valid concerns and won’t speak out. What do you think? — Gun-Shy in N.Y.C.

DEAR GUN-SHY: If the man has a license to carry the gun, then he is breaking no laws. You are certainly within your rights to refrain from being in his presence. If your parents were really concerned about their safety, they would either talk to the pastor or go somewhere else to worship. They have done neither, so you should let it go.

I like the part which says, "I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence." Although the writer didn't elaborate, I feel the same way and probably for the same reasons.

What's your opinion? Do you think is some cases the desire to be armed at all times is an indication of hidden problems? I'm not talking about people who make late-night deliveries in North Las Vegas or downtown Newark. I'm talking about the folks who go about their normal daily lives with guns, the supermarket, the local park, church.

Recently someone told us that almost all the crime was gang and drug related, which means for a non-gang and non-drug person going about their normal business, the chances of needing a gun are practically non-existent. In fact, studies have shown (you can look them up if you like) that over the course of a normal gun owner's life, he won't need the gun even once.

But, over a lifetime of carrying the gun, multiplied by the increasing number of folks who carry, chances of guns being misused are great.

For this reason I agree with the writer, Gun-Shy in NYC. People who feel they need to be armed at all times are dangerous. They've already demonstrated a problem in their rational thinking by coming to the decision to carry. Should we trust them to make other decisions, lightning fast ones which involve peoples' lives? No, we shouldn't.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Virginia to New Jersey

The Windsor-Heights Herald reports on the latest crackdown in gun trafficking into New Jersey from Virginia.

An East Windsor man was one of nine men indicted on gun trafficking charges late last week.

Amoi Smith, 21, of Chestnut Willows Apartments, was accused along with four Virginia men of aiding Trayle Beasley, 29, of Trenton, who lead a network that trafficked guns from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Trenton, said the indictment released May 27.

Mr. Smith, who remained at large Thursday, allegedly traveled to Virginia with Mr. Beasley on trips to get guns. Mr. Beasley was allegedly selling guns to drug dealers and gang members in Trenton, and preferred dealing in revolvers because they do not leave shell casings at crime scenes.

No wonder the criminals are winning. Smart ideas like that about the shell casings staying in the revolver will go a long way. But these particular guys weren't smart enough for the Jersey cops. And when the cops and the prosecutors get upset, look at what they do.

According to township police, Mr. Smith was charged in March 2009 with possession of a weapon, possession of a defaced weapon, possession of under 50 grams of marijuana with intent to distribute in a school zone, hindering apprehension, obstructing police and possession of narcotics paraphernalia.

That "intent to distribute in a school zone" is probably good for some extra years, don't you think?

What's your opinion? Are those easily acquired guns in Virginia just flowing up the I-95 Iron Pipeline? Sounds like it, huh?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Legitimate Gun Owners Gone Wild

The Morning Star published an article, to which FishyJay sent us the link. I'm wondering if this represents a change of heart for our regular commenter. Could he be my first convert? I knew it would happen sooner or later, but I'd always hoped it would be Mike W. or Kurt. Welcome aboard FishyJay.

IANSA director Rebecca Peters said: "The idea that only 'bad guys' do things like this is false.

"People who are not career criminals can turn violent. Having weapons designed to kill people is dangerous.

"The gun lobby says legal gun holders are not a problem at all and what we have to worry about is career criminals.

"But these are not career criminals, they're normal people, so that's an argument for recognising that just checking someone's criminal background is not enough to prevent homicides."

The killings showed the importance of strict controls on who should be allowed to own guns and what type, she added.

"In Britain the controls are strict compared with many other countries," she said.

"But this is yet another example of how a law-abiding gun owner can turn very suddenly into not law-abiding and the fact that they have been previously law-abiding does not mean they're responsible enough to own guns."

The answer is clear: fewer guns, and the ones that are allowed have to be licensed and registered in the strictest way possible. Truly law-abiding gun owners would applaud such initiatives.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

If You Know How Many Guns You Own

Thanks FishyJay. I think I'll order one.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Murder and Failed Suicide in Arizona reports on the latest example of "guns are bad news for women." I love these cases in which the man successfully kills the woman but fails to successfully kill himself.

One of the neighbors on the video said, "It just goes to show you never know what's going on in someone's home." Given that chilling fact, is it really a good idea to have guns in so many homes?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Another Place Where Gun Control Works

The Honolulu Advertiser reports on the latest stats to come out of that beautiful island state.
Hawai'i has the lowest gun death rate in the country, according to figures released this week by the Washington-based Violence Policy Center.

Hawai'i's gun death rate in 2007 was 2.82 per 100,000 residents, center officials said. The next lowest gun death rate, 3.51, was in Rhode Island, followed by 3.63 in Massachusetts.

Louisiana had the nation's highest gun death rate, at 19.87, followed by Mississippi at 18.32 and Alabama at 17.62, according to the center.

What could be the reason for this?

The study also listed household gun ownership by percentage, with 9.7 percent of the homes in Hawai'i having one or more guns in the household — the lowest percentage in the country.

States such as Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama had the nation's highest gun ownership rates, at between 46 and 57 percent, and also had the highest gun death rates, the study found.

Why is it so difficult for the gun rights folks to put two and two together? Hawaii is another place where gun control works. I suppose Joe Huffman can stop asking that silly question now.

What's your opinion? Does gun control work on the island of Hawaii?

Please leave a comment.

Guns in America

The Huffington Post has a slide show which is funny and sick and worrying all at the same time.

Here's my favorite. I've named it like this: "Young Timothy McVeigh wannabe teaches granny proper gun etiquette."

I know the camera is on a tripod, right? And besides she's aiming above it, right? And maybe her finger isn't really on the trigger.

Some of the other pics on HuffPo are even worse.

Chicago's Gun Ban

FishyJay sent us a link to the Chicago Tribune opinion piece about the upcoming Supreme Court decision.

So the justices also may be willing to permit rules requiring handgun owners to undergo safety training, pass background checks, register their weapons and secure them from children. What the court probably won't tolerate is restrictions whose obvious purpose is to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up.

We believe the high court should allow state and municipalities maximum discretion on firearms law. We strongly disagreed with the court's 2008 ruling.

But Chicago has a duty to respect the Constitution as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court, just as Chicago has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens against the abuse and misuse of guns.

City Hall had better get to work figuring out how to do both.

What's your opinion? Is it possible to do both? Do you think the Supreme Court will make that easier?

It would be easy if you felt like some that "zero restrictions" is the way to go. But for reasonable people who want to have reasonable restrictions, it's not so simple.

Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Gun Sales Up - Murder Rate Down made a post on "gun control," or at least that was the category. I don't agree with Rev. Rick on much of anything, but I do like his blog. This post was no exception to either of those things. As I was reading I thought it sounded familiar. It became clear that the point was BECAUSE so many people bought guns last year the murder rate went down. What's that "causation" thing they're always criticizing me about? Anyway, when I clicked on the link to Big Government, which the Rev. was liberally quoting, I discovered why it was sounding so familiar. Who's face do you think I saw there?

At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999, when President Bill Clinton and Columbine occurred, was another time when gun sales soared. With people such as Elena Kagan serving as Mr. Clinton’s deputy domestic policy adviser were pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming. And in response gun sales soared.

What's your opinion? Is it really as simple as that? Can you really say, 1. gun sales went up, 2. murders declined, the first one caused the second one?

Please leave a comment.

Soldier Sells Maching Gun and Claymore Mine

Nashville's reports on the crime.

A Fort Campbell soldier was arrested after selling a machine gun and a land mine to an undercover federal agent.

A federal official said Spc. Eric David Waldman, 22, of Clarksville, Tenn., was charged with one count of possession of an unregistered machine gun.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives resident agent in charge Kevin Kelm said the charge stems from when Waldman sold a machine gun to an agent in January for $5,500.

Kelm said an agent set up another meeting with Waldman on Monday in Oak Grove, Ky., just outside the installation, and he sold the agent another machine gun and a Claymore land mine.

Waldman could face additional charges from the Monday sale, Kelm said.

According the criminal complaint, ATF was tipped off that Waldman was trying to sell a fully automatic machine gun to a licensed gun dealer.The complaint stated that during the first meeting in January, Waldman said he was an infantryman in the Army and he had a Claymore mine that was brought back from Afghanistan that he wanted to sell.

Kelm said the machine guns are not military weapons, but the agency is checking a lot number on the mine to determine its origins.

What's your opinion? Aren't these the kinds of weapons that a lot of gun owners would love to own? Don't many gun rights advocates consider restrictions on owning these weapons to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment? Would you place someone who obtained a fully automatic machine gun in the same category as the rest of the criminals? Isn't this an area that many gun owners would consider a gray area?

Please leave a comment.

One-Gun-A-Month in Massachusetts reports on the trends in unsolved murders in Massachusetts.

The recent string of senseless gun killings of innocent children and young adults by gunfire is more than just a short-term spike. Anyone who questions the role of guns in homicides by strangers or undentified assailants (the type that tend to be committed by street criminals as opposed to those involving family members or acquaintances) needs only to glance at the recent trends distinguished by weapon category. As shown in the figure below, gun homicides by strangers or unidentified perpetrators have doubled statewide since 2000, while those carried out with all other weapons have hardly changed.

The solution is twofold: First, pass House Bill 4102, which includes a series of measures designed to reduce illegal gun trafficking without violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Most importantly, the bill would make Massachusetts the fifth state (joining Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and California) to implement a one-gun-a-month limit on purchasers, although with reasonable exemptions such as for law enforcement, military and security personnel. Second, encourage Maine and New Hampshire to do the same.

Of course, H. 4102 bill would only curtail shady transactions from Massachusetts gun dealers, and do nothing to stop the flood of illegal weapons from other states. Based on 2009 ATF trace data, 60% of guns associated with criminal activities within Massachusetts come from other states, most commonly New Hampshire and Maine. Years ago, Virginia was a major source of guns trafficked throughout the East Coast, including the Bay State; yet, according to an analysis of ATF trace reports, that stream largely dried up in 1993 when Virginia passed its one-a-month law.
Waht's your opinion? Does the one-gun-a-month law have benefits after all?

Please leave a comment.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

5-Year-Old Tucson Girl Dead reports on another child death from finding a gun.

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - A five-year-old girl who shot herself in the chest with a .40-caliber handgun Sunday afternoon has died, said Northwest Fire Capt. Adam Goldberg. The incident was reported at 12:24 p.m.

Goldberg said Reese Hotten and her mother were visiting family friends when the girl found the loaded gun and fired it.

The adults in the home began CPS and the girl was taken to a hospital, where she died at 1 p.m. The death was determined to be accidental.

Goldberg said cautioned parents who are visiting in others' homes to ask about firearms and whether they are locked up and out of the reach of children.

That's nice. Fire Capt. Adam Goldberg said the guns should be locked up and you should ask about that when visiting. How about if we lock up the owner of the gun? How about if we enforce common-sense gun laws about the proper and secure methods for storing guns in the home?

In Arizona, I realize, such a thing is not even possible. This is the result.

Why is it so difficult for those who support lenient gun laws in places like Arizona to understand why I blame them?

By the way, are the call letters of this station a joke? Do they choose them like personalized license plates?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

2-Year-Old Milwaukee Boy Dead

JS Online reports on the latest child death by playing with the parent's gun.

A 2-year-old Milwaukee boy died Sunday after accidentally shooting himself in the face after finding his mother’s handgun in a dresser drawer.

Officials say Zaire Cameron was in a bedroom with two other children watching a movie Sunday before the incident occurred.

His mother and father had been in a separate room and rushed in when they heard the gunshot.

Zaire was slumped over the end of the bed with the gun lying next to him.

According to the medical examiner’s report, the boy’s mother had caught him playing with the gun a day before, punished the boy and then placed the gun back in the same drawer.

Both the mother and father own a handgun for protection.

One sad element of this story is the difficulty in teaching young kids about guns. Some gun advocates say you can gun-proof the kid; I don't believe it works. It certainly didn't work in this case.

Another idea is one frequently mentioned by the pro-gun crowd. They say these are anecdotal and extremely rare incidents that don't prove anything. Do you think that's true?

Please leave a comment.

Gun Flow into Mexico

Security Management
published an article about the appeal of David Shirk, Ph.D., Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of California, San Diego.

Shirk noted that there's a tendency to find more higher-powered, assault-like weaponry within the Eastern corridor of Mexico as opposed to Mexico's Baja, California, in the West. While there are various reasons why this variance occurs between East and West Mexico, U.S. state gun laws play a role, Shirk said. He pointed to the state of California's much stricter gun laws, especially on assault-like weapons, as a reason why Western Mexico is less violent than its Eastern territories. Shirk also said this disparity "speak[s] strongly in favor of the remarks" Calderon made during his visit to the United States at the end of May.

Now that's an answer we've been looking for. The question was, "Do California's strick gun laws work?" The answer, "Yes."

The issue, however, is highly contentious because of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. In a statement more than a year ago, the National Rifle Association's (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox said in a statement that the anti-gun advocates would use the CIFTA "to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners."

The problem is when we protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, we make it easy for the not-so-law-abiding to get guns too. At a certain point this blind focusing on the 2nd Amendment creates more problems than it cures. That's when we need to rethink the whole business. That's when we need to agree on what reasonable restrictions might be.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Florida - Again

The Miami herald reports.

Police say an unemployed postal worker went on a 5-mile shooting rampage in central Florida, injuring two people.

According to the Polk County Sheriff's Office, 51-year-old Robin Parks of Auburndale was driving east on U.S. 92 early Saturday when he started shooting out of his car.

Deputies say a 17-year-old boy riding home with his parents and a 30-year-old woman driving alongside Parks were struck.

Parks reportedly told deputies that he had gotten into a confrontation at a bar and was shooting to protect himself.

Sheriff Grady Judd says Parks had a blood-alcohol level of 0.22, above the legal limit of 0.08.

Parks is charged with five counts of attempted first-degree murder and battery using a deadly weapon. He was ordered held without bond Sunday.

What is going on in Florida lately. Do you think it could be that oil leak in the Gulf that's making them all crazy?

Would it be speculating too much to suggest this guy was a legal gun owner gone wild? Would that be reading too much into the story?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Horror in Hialeah

The Sun Sentinal reports on the latest murder/suicide to claim mulitple victims.

Regalado, 38, showed up at Yoyito Cafe in Hialeah on Sunday night, just as his estranged wife was finishing her second day as a waitress. Armed with a .45-caliber pistol that he owned, he pulled the trigger nine times, killing Molina and three co-workers. He also wounded three others in a shooting spree that was described by 911 callers as total mayhem.

Do you think when they say "pistol that he owned" they mean legally? If he'd been a gangster or a drug dealer they would have said that, don't you think?

So let's say this terribly sad story exemplifies several things we frequently talk about.

1. a certain percentage of gun owners should not have guns.
2. guns are bad news for women.
3. Florida has a sick gun culture.

Concealed Carry Permits in Maine

FishyJay sent us the link and this nifty graph. Why do you think there's been such a dramatic and sudden increase in Maine?

Concern about crime and personal safety is behind a sharp increase in the number of concealed firearms permits issued by the Maine State Police, firearms instructors and gun rights advocates say.

I don't think I agree with that. Things haven't changed enough in Maine to account for this. I'd say the reason for the increase is the tremendous effectiveness of that planned hysteria about Obama taking away the guns. The gun manufacturers and the gun dealers did that, and it worked. The NRA and everyday gun owners had their own stake in it too, but it was really about big business manipulating the gullible consumers by feeding them fear and paranoia.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Liz Cheney Speaks with Arianna Huffington

Amerigo Vespucci posted this video on The Democratic Underground with the following caption.

Liz Cheney Hearts Haliburton, Blames Left For Demonizing Bush & Cheney, Spits Pea Soup, Rotates Head

Off-Duty Police Shooting in Baltimore

The Raw Story reports on a terrible Baltimore police shooting.

A Baltimore man is dead after he "made advances" on a woman whose male companion, an off-duty police officer, responded by shooting the man six times, news reports say.

According to a report from Baltimore police, the police officer may have fired 13 times at 32-year-old Tyrone Brown, a Marine and four-year veteran of the Iraq war, hitting Brown six times in the chest.

The Baltimore Sun identifies the shooter as "Gahiji A. Tshamba, a 15-year veteran of the city police force."

It turns out the officer in question shot a fleeing suspect in the back ten years ago.

I don't care if you're a cop or a civilian with a concealed carry permit, too many of you are unfit to own guns. This is just one more example. If that doesn't apply to you, don't get all defensive and make excuses for these guys. They're giving all of you a bad name.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Shawano Gun and Loan

JS Online reports on the way legitimate gun shops and their supporters are nothing more than brazen criminals in disguise, and how they aid and abet the criminals who don't bother with any attempt at dissimulation.

From almost the time it opened in 1998, Shawano Gun and Loan has been in trouble with federal authorities.

After repeatedly warning the store about missing records and other violations, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took the unusual step of revoking its license in 2007.

Nearly three years later, the case is tied up in federal court in Green Bay where an appeal could grind on for years.

And the store continues to sell guns - thousands of them each year - with the ATF's blessing.

What's more, the owner told the ATF that he might transfer the operation to his nephew. That could keep the store operating and erase the violations and revocation - similar to the scenario that unfolded in 2006 at the West Milwaukee store that has sold every gun used to wound six Milwaukee police officers in the past 2 ½ years.

The story goes on to describe the similarities between these guys and the Badger gang. What I can't understand is how truly legitimate gun owners can support this nonsense. Don't these guys give all of you a bad name? I, for one, keep saying so. Don't you think other people see it that way?

The delaying tactics, stretching out the court appearances so as to continue the illegal practices, are the tactics of criminals not legitimate businessmen. Blatantly violating rules and guidelines and simply relinquishing the licence so your nephew with a clean record can take over the business is the trick of a white-collar criminal.

When the misguided gun owners who defend and support these practices actually result in weaker and less effective laws, everyone suffers, everyone pays for that.

Straw buying is a crime - for the buyer and the clerk who knowingly makes the sale. It is a federal felony but remains a misdemeanor in Wisconsin after the Legislature failed to pass a law making it a felony this year.

Please leave a comment.

Muslims Taking Over published an open letter to Mayor Bloomberg and others about the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg, Lower Manhattan Community Board, citizens of downtown NYC, and all politically correct thinkers of America. The great investigative journalism of Andy Solits together with the NYPost has begun to expose the truth about Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf. Just to recap the background information, Iman Feisal is the person behind the “Cordoba Initiative’s” purchase of the Burlington Building that is being proposed as a 13-story mosque and center, The Cordoba House, footsteps from Ground Zero. Iman Feisal plans on raising $100-150 million to construct this mosque for over 2,000 Muslims who will come to pray and play. Sounds innocent enough to some, but is really cloaked to hide their true agenda, the foothold in America for 'Sharia Law'.

Talk about conspiracy theories, this one takes the cake. Don't these people realize it's the Mexicans who are taking over America not the Muslims? I'll bet the same people who support this hysteria are also upset about the illegal Mexican immigrants.

Another thing they're forgetting is how big and strong the United States is, how vast it is in cultural diversity. It's not called the Melting Pot for nothing. The idea that Muslims could take over and achieve "Sharia Law" is so ridiculous that it leaves me speechless.

Besides, wouldn't the 80 million gun owners rise up and protect us if need be?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Sebastian on Josh Horwitz

Sebastian posted a criticism of Josh Horwitz' recent remarks.

Josh Horwitz:

While America began as a revolution against the king of England, revolution turned out to be a terrible form of governing, Horwitz says. “There was no ability to tax, so (Gen.) Washington’s army starved. State legislatures had an immense amount of power. There were mobbings in every city with no central authority to put any (revolt) down. Militias formed and closed down the courts.”

So the founders crafted a new document to replace perpetual revolution with a constitutional government, Horwitz explains. None of the framers of the Constitution “believed there was an individual right to insurrection. The Second Amendment was about who got control of the militia. The states did not want the federal government to draft their militias into federal service.”

America, he adds, was founded on “one person, one vote. Not one gun, one vote … Just because you have a gun does not give you a bigger say in government. That violates some of our most fundamental principals.”


What I can’t figure out is whether Horwitz is legitimately goofy about believing that folks who would suggest the Declaration of Independence is a blueprint for just revolution are just as radical and extreme as, say, a Timothy McVeigh, or whether he’s trying to chain the real extremists to those who are not in hopes that it pulls the whole issue under the water. If it’s the latter, he might want to rethink much of his rhetoric.


What I’m disappointed about in Horwitz’ talk is his referring to the Revolutionary War period at all. I’d rather he leave that to you pro-gun guys because using “the founders,” who were slave-owners who denied women basic human rights, as the source justification for anything just doesn’t make much sense to me.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Organized Crime - Monsanto Style

Il Principe recommended a wonderful and eye-opening film called Food, Inc. Although they don't mention Monsanto in their trailer, the main message I took from the movie was that Monsanto is run by the biggest bunch of gangsters in the world. I wondered if that's what The Prince was referring to in his recent comment.

the military industrial complex has transformed into the the corporate political complex.

The thing that struck me about Monsanto in the film, Food, Inc. was the decades-long conspiracy they've engaged in with Justice Thomas and others to gain control of the food supply, the way they've moved the entire world, not only the United States, into dependency on genetically modified foods, and especially the way they now own, OWN, almost all the seeds.

The whole nasty business is well demonstrated by their product called Round Up.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

California's New Gun Laws reports on two additional bills in California concerning guns. One has been nick-named the "long-gun registration" by pro-gun spin doctors. It's actually nothing more than not destroying sales records.

Under the current system, those who buy rifles and shotguns must go to a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer runs a background check on the buyer. If the new gun owner passes the background check, he or she must wait 10 days before they can take the gun home.

The records from that transaction are then destroyed.

“AB 1810 would stop the needless destruction of long gun records, which prevents law enforcement from using this information to quickly identify the owners of crime guns,” Feuer wrote in his arguments for the bill. “Without these records, law enforcement must painstakingly trace recovered firearms from the manufacturer, through the distributor, to the firearms dealer who sold the weapon.”

The opposition must be based upon the paranoid idea that gun confiscation is right around the corner, "if we allow this, next thing we know, they'll be coming for our guns."

Another bill has to do with lead bird shot and the environment. This is another area in which the pro-gun crowd stands in unison, more or less. They oppose this, not because they really care one way or the other, but because they oppose any and all laws restricting their gun rights, even ones that make sense. Of course, you've got the hunters who care more for the cost of their ammo than for the condition of the environment. They're an interesting bunch too.

What's your opinion? Are these laws going to pass the Senate and receive the OK from the governor? Should they?

Please leave a comment.