Saturday, December 8, 2012

Zappadan 2012 Day 5 - Carolina Hardcore Ecstacy

Other followers include Micordot and Urantian Sojourn

Permanent Solution to a Temporary Problem

ABC News reports

NYT Op-Ed on the Gun Debate

New York Times op-ed
On national television, you can talk about the sordid details of your sex life, the depth of your religious piety or your belief that an organization that no longer exists, Acorn, stole the 2012 presidential election — a fantasy held by half of Republicans. You can call climate change a hoax, you can say the moon landing never happened, you can even praise Alex Rodriguez, though you shouldn’t.

But you cannot talk about the 300 million or more guns circulating in private hands in the United States. The most armed society in the world, ranked first among 179 nations in the rate of gun ownership, had 9,146 gun homicides in 2009. The same year, Canada had 173. But don’t bring that up.

Costas made his brief remarks at halftime of the Sunday night game. Within minutes, the censors went after him. Top Republicans called for his resignation. Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, who are to reasoned argument what salt is to a slug, condemned him. And Herman Cain, the pizza guy who at one point led the Republican presidential primary field in the polls, passed on this tweet: “Excuse me, Bob Costas, but you are an idiot, so shut up.”

Those last two words pretty much define the current climate regarding debate about guns and violence. In this country, it is the issue that dare not speak its name.

People with guns in the home are at a far greater risk of dying of homicide than those without, the American Journal of Epidemiology reported in 2004. For men, the likelihood of death by suicide is much higher if a gun is nearby. And 90 percent of suicide attempts by gun are successful; for willful drug overdoses, the rate is only 2 percent.

Understandably, people buy guns for self-defense. But a gun in the home is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member, or a visitor, than an intruder, a 2010 study by the official journal of the Southern Medical Association found.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Grand Funk Railroad - An American Band - Paranoid

I dedicate this classic to all our pro-gun friends who believe the government needs watching or that Obama will take their guns away or that some bad guy is going to hurt them any time now.

Accidental Shooting of New York Man Who Dropped Gun - No Charges

Local news reports
A Manchester man remains at Strong Memorial Hospital after an accidental shooting Saturday, Ontario County sheriff’s deputies said. 

Jason C. Bliven was attempting to put a handgun in a gun safe at his residence Saturday when the gun fell on the floor and discharged a round, which struck Bliven in the right side of his chest and exited out of his right shoulder area.
Two pro-gun lies debunked in one story. There is no de-facto gun ban in New York and guns often discharge when dropped.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Negligent and Avoidable Shooting Death in Virginia Officially Ruled an Accident - No Charges

Local news reports

The September 29th shooting which killed Stoughton High senior David Wade, long understood to be an accident, has officially been ruled as such, the office of Norfolk Country District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey announced in a press release Friday afternoon.

Wade, 17, suffered a gunshot wound to the chest at his Turnpike St. home. He was accidentally shot by his 21-year-old brother.

"The investigation into the September 29, 2012 shooting death of David Wade in his Stoughton home has concluded that the shooting was accidental, the pistol was lawfully possessed and criminal charges are not warranted," the release states.
It was just an accident. What the heck.

Please leave a comment.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Common Ground on Gun Control

If the gun loons weren't so busy being led by their noses and used their brains, they might have seen this coming, but...

Heller-McDonald made it clear that firearms regulation was acceptable.  Although, all the gun loons heard was "individual right" and their diseased minds went from there instead of seeing what was actually said.

Now, it seems that Bill O'Reilly is actually agreeing to reasonable regulation:
COSTAS: Roughly 40 percent of the guns purchased in this country do not require a background check for purchase.
O'REILLY: Ok. So you want a background check, right?
COSTAS: You have that. You've talked about stricter penalties, harsher penalties for those --
O'REILLY: For criminals.
COSTAS: Exactly.
O'REILLY: Right.
COSTAS: There is that. There ought to be training programs for those who purchase guns. I don't see any reason why someone should be able to purchase military-style artillery and body armor and automatic weapons. Only the police or the military should have that --
O'REILLY: All right, all of those are reasonable positions.
Didn't see that one coming did ya?

Fast-Talking Con Artist - Mr. Colion Noir

His first mistake was to address people who want to "take away the guns from America." No one wants to do that.  This is a pro-gun trick, pretending we want to "ban guns," and arguing against that as if we really said it.

Then he goes into the "evil" segment.  With certainty he says, "it will make its appearance at some point." This is the traditional fear tactic that gun nuts use to justify their behavior and gun makers use to sell more guns to them.

And no proper pro-gun rant would be complete without the "blaming the gun" schlock. We don't do that, in spite of the frequency of its repetition from the self-righteous gun lovers.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Michigan May Move the Wrong Way on the Gun Show Loophole

Michigan Live reports
Hoping to stop potential votes by a lame-duck Legislature, Michigan mayors and police officers on Monday said no longer requiring handgun owners to have a license would allow 50,000 sales each year in the state without criminal background checks.

Federally licensed firearm dealers are required to conduct background checks so felons, drug dealers and others cannot buy a gun - and that will stay the same no matter what.

But legislation that quietly cleared the Republican-controlled House in June - and is pending in the GOP-led Senate - would eliminate background checks for person-to-person sales at gun shows, on the Internet or elsewhere.
Interesting that the police are in favor of maintaining this important gun control restriction. The gun-rights folks never tire of repeating the lie that the cops are on their side.

The tragedy of this is it would move Michigan in the wrong direction.  How anyone could think that's a good thing is beyond me.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment-

Caught Burglar Calls 911

via Mad Mike's America
A suspected burglar called 911 after the owner of the home he broke into caught and held him at gunpoint.

The suspect, Christopher Moore, placed the emergency call in Springtown, Texas, during the botched burglary attempt early Tuesday after James Gerow, the homeowner, and Gerow’s son pointed guns at him as he sat in his pickup truck parked in the driveway.

“I’m out in the country somewhere,” Moore told the 911 operator during the 10-minute call. “Some guy’s got a gun on me.”

Gerow’s wife, Lindy, placed a concurrent call to 911 that confirmed Moore’s account.
“You better come quick,” she said, “or my husband’s going to shoot him.”

“If he gets out of the truck, shoot him in the legs,” James Gerow told his son, according to the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog. “You ain’t gotta kill him—just shoot him in the legs.”

When police arrived, both Moore and Lindy Gerow were still talking to 911 dispatchers.
According to CBS’ Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate, Moore was arrested and charged with burglary. He’s currently being held on a $35,000 bond.
Aggregate courtesy of YahooNews.  For the video click HERE.

I'd say this Texan gun owner displayed the proper restraint. His remark on the video was especially appropriate. He said the guy was obviously not in his right mind and didn't need to be shot.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Why "Chicago" is a Bad Gun-Rights Argument

I wish I had a Dollar for every time some pro-gun commenter used the argument that the gun violence in Chicago proves that gun control doesn't work. They say this as if it really makes sense.  On pro-gun blogs they repeat it so often that they've actually begun to believe it.

Unlike some of our friends, Frail Liberty for example, I put a good deal of stock into the Google-search-engine method of determining statistics.  Searching for news results on a particular subject, although not comprehensive by any means, is a good way of obtaining a rough idea of what's reaching the news. DGUs, for example, appear to be about 100 times less frequent than gun misuse. Allowing for the very reasonable argument that DGUs of the brandishing kind don't make the news, one can make the appropriate allowances and come up with a fairly accurate idea of what's what.

About Chicago, there's an interesting thing to be found in Google.  Almost every single incident is gang or drug or criminal related. Weekends when a dozen people are killed and scores wounded, you can usually find not one case of lawful gun owners going bad. In other places where gun restrictions are less onerous, domestic violence by formerly lawful gun owners, work related shootings by formerly law abiding gun owners and other like incidents make up a major percentage of the gun crime.  Not so in Chicago.

Of course Chicago has some hidden criminals like any place, but due to the strict gun control, they are far fewer and they make the news much less frequently.

This means that Chicago is a good example of gun control working as it should. In spite of the ridiculous claims of the pro-gun folks, we understand that criminals do not obey laws. The gang members and drug dealers in Chicago are no exception.  They easily import all the guns they need from Indiana, Ohio and several other states with lax gun laws within driving distance.  But among the non-criminal citizens of Chicago, there is an extremely safe and secure environment, thanks to its gun control restrictions and resultant limited gun availability.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Jim Demint (R-SC) Quits Senate to Head Heritage

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2-Year-old Son of Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shot and Killed by 4-Year-old Brother

Local news reports KMSP-TV

Jon Stewart on the Bizarre Republican Hatred of the UN

Border Patrol Agent Shoots Woman 10 Times from the Hood of her Moving Car

SF Gate reports
A Border Patrol agent in Southern California who shot and killed a mother of five after she hit him with her vehicle fired his gun 10 times from the hood of her car as he tried to get the woman to stop, according to an autopsy report released Thursday.

Valeria "Munique" Tachiquin Alvarado, 32, suffered 14 gunshot wounds to her upper body, the San Diego County Medical Examiner said. Some bullets may have caused more than one wound.
The autopsy determined the Sept. 28 death was a homicide and lists multiple gunshot wounds as the cause.

Alvarado fled a friend's apartment in Chula Vista when agents came with an arrest warrant for someone else, according to the autopsy, mirroring previous statements from police. Police say her car struck an agent and she drove with him on the hood for about 200 yards.
She was trying to run away. This outraged the cop who then did his best Bruce Willis imitation.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Donne Trotter, Illinois Politician, Arrested at the Airport

Yahoo News reports
An Illinois state senator running for former Democratic U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat in Congress was released on bond on Thursday, following his arrest for trying to bring a gun onto an airplane.

A Cook County judge set bail at $25,000 for Donne Trotter, 62, on the felony charge. Trotter, who has called the incident an honest mistake, posted bond and was released shortly afterward.

If convicted, Trotter could face a sentence ranging from probation to up to four years in prison, according to prosecutors.

Trotter, a Chicago Democrat, is a gun control advocate who once voted "no" on a measure that would have allowed state residents to carry concealed weapons in 1995.
How embarrassing. A gun control politician who gets caught violating his own rules.

Prosecutors said Trotter's handgun was not registered with the city of Chicago, as required by municipal ordinance. He had a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and a permit allowing him to carry his gun to and from work.
Now, if we were to divide folks into two camps, us and them as far as the gun control debate goes, which one would be have to put Trotter in? It's true he is a Democrat who voted no on a concealed carry bill at least once in the past. But, he was a gun owner, held a FOID card as well as that special permit allowing him to carry the gun back and forth to work.

I'd say that puts him squarely in the "gun camp."  What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

How to Make Shotgun Shell Christmas Lights

via Offbeat Home

Basically what you do is you collect a bunch of shells, and give them a good washing in hot soapy water since they'll have powder all over them.

You can separate them by color so you can figure out some kind of pattern that pleases you. Or just go random if you aren't that anal.

Finally, hot glue the open end of the shells to your string of lights. You may need pliers to smush the open end a bit closed so that it makes better contact with the light string. But we just glued the edges of the shell to the wiring and so far, after two years, they've stayed intact.

Incredible Fox Discussion on the Belcher Shooting

Was Jesus Christ for Gun Rights or Gun Control?

via The Raw Story

Fischer fails to note that later in The Gospel According to Luke, Jesus rebukes his disciple for using a sword during his arrest. In the version of the same story recounted by The Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus tells his disciples, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Pennsylvania School District Expands Its Gun-Free Zone

Local news reports
The Council Rock School Board voted 5-4 Thursday night to add the Chancellor Center, where the board holds its meetings, under a policy that bans weapons from school properties pursuant to state law.

The change basically states that the Chancellor Center is subject to the same state laws applicable to its school buildings. It reads, “The board affirms that the Chancellor Center, as a building of the Council Rock School District, is covered by and subject to state laws generally applicable to the grounds and buildings of public school districts.”
It's odd that even in Pennsylvania, which is well known for its gun culture, these folks feel the gun-free zone is a good thing.  Gun-rights activists always try to excessively disparage this popular belief.  It's a bluff on their part.  The truth is most people agree, the practice of allowing guns at schools and public buildings and around kids is best avoided if possible.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

The Democrats Want More Gun-Free Zones in New Hampshire

Huffington Post
A newly elected New Hampshire state legislator has proposed legislation to ban openly carrying guns in public buildings. 

State Rep.-elect Delmar Burridge (D-Keene) said he wants to stop the practice of carrying guns into public buildings, including schools, libraries and the Statehouse, as a way to make the state safer. 

The legislation, which is gathering opposition from the state chapter of the National Rifle Association, would allow those with conceal carry permits to continue bringing guns into public buildings. Certified peace officers also still would be able to carry guns openly in public buildings under the legislation. 

Burridge said New Hampshire's conceal carry laws require a permit that can only be obtained with three character references, along with permission from a local police department -- a process that ensures safety when permitted carriers bring guns into public spaces, he said. 

Burridge noted that the practice of openly carrying guns into state buildings has caused problems in the state Legislature. Rep. Kyle Tasker (R-Nottingham) dropped one of his guns on the floor during a House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee meeting in March. Tasker, who carries two guns in a shoulder holster, said at the time that he was feeling "loopy" after giving blood and that caused the gun to fall to the floor. Tasker's gun did not discharge.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.

More on the US vs. UK Crime Comparison

I was googling for "violent crime in the U.K. and found these two documents.
from which I gleaned this bit:
"Overall, according to the BCS, numbers of violent incidents have fallen back to similar levels to 25 years ago. There

were approximately 2.2 million violent incidents in 1981, and 2.4 million based on the 2005/06 BCS. The latest
figures show a significant reduction of 43 per cent from the peak of 4.3 million violent crimes in 1995.
Many of the violent crimes reported to the BCS are relatively low level violence (such as pushing and shoving) and
around half of the violent crime does not involve any injury to the victim."

I like that "low level violence." In the UK, that gets counted. In the US, guns are drawn and guys like Professor Kleck count it as a DGU.

The most interesting thing in those documents is that crime in the UK is not skyrocketing like the gun-rights folks keep telling us.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Why is it that when idiotic laws are mentioned in other countries does it happen to be satire?

In this case the "Get Away With Murder" laws.  Why would anyone in their right mind want to make it so easy for people to get away with murder?

Of course, unlike the real "Get Away With Murder" laws, this comes from a UK satirical site.

Kind of a shame that laws like this  in other countries only are mentioned in satirical websites such as the Daily Mash or Newsthump:

Tuesday 4 December 2012 by Waylandsmithy

‘Offset murder’ offers wealthy an easier way of tackling climate change

A psychopathic think-tank has suggested a radical solution to man-made global warming, by murdering impoverished strangers so the wealthy can offset their carbon emissions.
With CO2 emissions growing by over 3% a year, the lobby group insists there should be no delay in reducing the pitter-patter of tiny carbon footprints.
Environmentalists have known for some time that planting trees can be time-consuming and boring, whereas paying a hitman to kill a few families on a Pacific atoll can easily offset a trans-Atlantic flight.
For a monthly fee ‘Carbine Offset’ will shoot people you weren’t likely to meet anyway, so you can continue to use an outdoor hot tub in January with a completely clean conscience.

Carbon offset opportunities

Graham Collis says his group has never been so busy.
While driving a Prius is too horrible a fate for his customers to imagine, many are more than happy to ‘offset murder’ for the sake of their children’s future.
For many, such a simple choice will come as relief. As Collis explained, “It’s much harder to slightly reduce our own emissions, than to completely stop someone else’s.”
Targeting the World’s poorest would appear to be cruel at first, but Collis pointed out that the malnourished are poorly insulated, and idle fat cats make better carbon sinks.
The figures are astonishing. Wiping out just a handful of sub-Saharan subsistence farmers could offset several winter skiing trips.
Though some have criticised the plan as ‘monstrous’, Collis is unrepentant.
“If we’re honest, none of my clients are ever going to change their behaviour, so the people we’re offsetting were going to die shortly anyway”, he insisted.
“At least this way, we can tell our children that we managed to hit a few of our targets.”

Lawrence O'Donnell on the Costas Remarks

via The Immoral Minority

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As lethal? really?

A challenge for you...

How Many DGUs Are There? Further Explanation

Yet you have chosen to adamantly take exception to that observation. Well okay. No harm will come to you because of it. But surely you will concur that those cases in which a gun was fired generally make it into the media. No, wait – I’ll more than meet you halfway. Surely you’ll concur that those instances in which the offender is killed or wounded will generally make it into the media. Well, those add up to roughly 300 per year. But let’s continue to be generous and call it 500.

Now according to Kleck-Gertz, these comprise 8 percent of the total. As I’ve stated before, this figure is surely far too low, because Kleck and Gertz are extremely loose in their definition of a defensive gun use. But I don’t have a better figure to offer, so we’ll use it. If the generously high figure of 500 represents the generously low figure of 8 percent, then that makes the total around 6250. It’s simple grade school arithmetic. People who claim that my “math is off” are not only incorrect, they’re off track. It’s not exactly MY math that has become the basis of dogma.

Bottom line: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; but the only “proof” ever offered for the extraordinaily high DGU counts is that some people say so. Sorry, but I find that quite inadequate. The 2.5 million claim is a legendary beast of titanic proportions, and if it existed, it would leave an appropriately large footprint. But the only footprint in evidence so far is miniscule. Show me the behemoth footprints and I’ll consider it more likely that the beast itself exists. Until then, I must remain skeptical.

I'm not as reluctant to use speculation as the Professor is.  I believe that a significant percentage of those 300 to 500 reported DGUs each year are false.  And I believe an even higher percentage of the rest are false, the ones that don't get reported at all.

This brings us right back down to the 500 mark. 

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Murder Rates Canada vs. The US - With a Pro Gun Spin Job

via Extrano's Alley, a gun blog
The United States homicide rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people. When the United States population is broken down by demographic groups, those rates range from 0.7 to 17.1 per 100,000 population. Since the two neighbors have vastly different demographics, and there appears to be no official breakdown of the demographics of Canadian homicide victims, the United States population and homicide rate must be “normalized” to Canada’s.

Canada’s official “police reported” a total of 676 “violations resulting in death,” that is, homicides, which results in a raw calculated 2011 rate of 1.9 per 100,000 population.

Returning to normalization, the US demographic group with the highest homicide rate, 17.1, comprises 12.6% of the US population, but only 2.5% of Canada’s population.

When the homicide rates among the various US population groups is “normalized,” with the various components of the United States population represented in the same percentage as Canada, the US homicide rate is – 2.0! The difference is not only trivial, both numbers are rounded, Canada’s down and the United States up. The actual difference is 0.07!
Isn't that a riot? The way pro-gun guys twist and rationalize is truly funny. They can take any statistics, like Canada is 1.9 and the US is 4.7 and twist it into the actual difference is 0.07.

The simple and obvious fact is Canada, much like the UK, has a murder rate far lower than the US.  Surely one of the factors in this difference is gun availability.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Wayne La Pierre on Costas' Half-Time Remarks

Fox News on Costas' Half-Time Remarks

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Generals and Admirals Urge Congress to Amend Personal Weapon Privacy Law

The Star-Telegram reports
A group of senior retired generals and admirals are calling for Congress to amend a recent law that they say "dangerously interferes" with the ability of commanders to battle the epidemic of suicides among members of the military.

Legislation added to the 2011 defense authorization bill at the urging of gun-rights advocates prohibits commanders from collecting any information about weapons privately owned by troops.

Critics say the law prevents commanders from talking to service members about their privately owned weapons -- such as encouraging the use of a gunlock or temporary storage away from their homes -- even in cases when the commanding officer thinks the service member is at risk for suicide.

"The law is directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives," states a letter sent last week to members of Congress by a dozen retired officers, including former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer and former surgeons general for the Army, Air Force and Navy.

"It unnecessarily hampers a commander from taking all possible practical steps for preventing suicide," one of the signers, Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, said Saturday. Dubik commanded the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq in 2007 and 2008.

As of the end of October, the number of suspected suicides by active-duty soldiers in the Army alone had reached 166, one more than the total for last year.

We had quite a heated discussion about this last month.  Gun control folks don't seem to have any difficulty with the idea that gun availability is a contributing factor in suicide.  The Generals and Admirals who are urging Congress to change this law seem to agree.

Only gun-rights fanatics argue such nonsense as people who want to commit suicide will always succeed in doing it even if there is no gun. No amount of surveys or academic research or indeed, common sense can dissuade them from their single-minded objective. They want to defend guns and gun ownership at any cost. They refuse to admit that the lethality and efficiency of a gun makes attempted suicide more likely to succeed.

To support their absurd argument, they insist that people who attempt suicide are never suffering from a temporary problem but are truly determined to do themselves in and will go to any length to accomplish it.  Some go so far as to say it's every person's right to commit suicide and no one should interfere.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Should Mentally Incompetent Veterans Retain Gun Rights?

The Washington Post reports
Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

“I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us,” Schumer said. “If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran’s name in the Criminal Background Check System.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA’s current policy reasonable.

“We’re talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they’re unable to manage their own affairs,” Gross said. “If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”
Coburn, and his NRA overlords, are really showing their true colors on this one. They have no concern for anything other than pushing gun rights, even if it means returning those rights to the worst of the worst.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Can you imagine how incompetent those 185 are?  We're not talking about people with mild mental problems who need a little help with their affairs.  These are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000. 

I find the extremism of the NRA and its minions truly shocking.  Don't you?

Please leave a comment.

Wild Shootout in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania - 1 Dead - 5 Wounded

Local news reports
According to a video of an interview posted by Bethlehem police on its official blog, Jeffrey Noe, a witness to the shooting, told police that the incident began as an argument. A man was walking down the street by himself and several people started hitting him with a bat, he said.

"There was a fight," Noe told police. "Two on six, two on eight. A guy pulled a gun and fired a warning shot in the air. Everybody scattered."

Shortly after, a second man started shooting people. He shot the man who had been beaten and fallen to the ground. Then the first shooter shot the second shooter, Noe said.

"After that, there was like 30 shots," he said. "I ducked for cover. Everybody was worried about their friends. Apparently, everybody was friends."

Morganelli said all of the people that investigators are looking at as potential suspects are at the hospital. He said the public should have "no concern whatsoever" that a gunman is at large.
Gun-rights people insist that as there are more and more guns in civilian hands, incidents like this will become less and less frequent.

Does that make sense to you?

Please leave a comment.

New York Lawful Gun Owner Drops Gun and is Shot in the Chest

Local news reports
An Ontario County man accidentally shot himself Saturday night, while attempting to store his gun in a safe.

Jason C. Bliven, 38, of Farmington was placing his loaded handgun back into a gun safe at his residence, when the gun fell to the floor and fired about 10:45 p.m. Saturday, according to Ontario County sheriff’s deputies.

One round struck Bliven in his chest, deputies said. The bullet exited his right shoulder.

Deputies said Bliven has a valid New York State pistol permit. The handgun involved in the accidental shooting was legally registered, deputies said.
It's a shame that a guy who's responsible enough to own a gun safe is also clumsy enough to drop the gun. Perhaps he believed the pro-gun claim that guns don't discharge when dropped and wasn't as careful as he should have been.

When he gets out of the hospital he should lose the contents of that gun safe as well as his New york State pistol permit.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Accidental Shooting in Virginia - One Man Dead - No Charges

Local news reports
Police detectives determined a deadly shooting Monday morning in east Richmond was an accident.

“A 25-year-old female was taken into custody at the scene and interviewed by detectives,” Richmond Police spokeswoman Dionne Waugh wrote in an email. “After preliminary investigation, interviews with witnesses and after comparing evidence found at the scene and statements made by the female taken into custody, the Richmond Police Department, in consultation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, will not be prosecuting the female at this time.”

The shooting happened around 3:00 a.m. Monday inside a home along the 1200 block of Nelson Street. The victim, a man, had been shot once, Waugh said.

The police investigation is on-going and charges could be brought at a later time, police added.
Now that's a little more like it. You take the responsible person into custody and then try to determine what happened.

The only problem is, of course, that no charges are being filed. That's just wrong.  It's another example of the mistaken attitudes we have towards so-called gun accidents.

I'm all for releasing these people from jail and suspending any further jail sentences, but to send them on their way with a warning to be more careful is wrong.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Christian Preacher, Rick Joyner, Says Marriage Will Be Outlawed

via Dog Gone from

The delusional Rick Joyner claims that in Switzerland, it’s hate speech to refer to your wife as your wife rather than your partner (that’s a lie, of course) and that it will lead to the banning of straight marriage completely — and it’s “already happening” in America.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Suicides in Japan

reposted from March 18, 2010

 Wikipedia has the following report:
Suicide has never been criminalized in Japan. Japanese society's attitude toward suicide has been termed "tolerant", and on many occasions a suicide is seen as a morally responsible action. However, the rise of Internet suicide websites and increasing rate of suicide pacts (shinjū) has raised concern from the public and media, which consider the pacts "thoughtless"

Public discussion of the high rate of suicide focuses on blaming the economic hardship faced by middle-aged men. In addition, increase in Internet use (particularly the suicide websites) is partially blamed for the increase in suicide in recent years
During Japan's imperial years, suicide was common within the military. This included kamikaze, kaiten and suicide when a battle is lost.

And this, also from Wiki about Seppuku, the formal name for hari kari.

Seppuku as judicial punishment was officially abolished in 1873, shortly after the Meiji Restoration, but voluntary seppuku did not completely die out. Dozens of people are known to have committed seppuku since then, including some military men who committed suicide in 1895 as a protest against the return of a conquered territory to China; by General Nogi and his wife on the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912; and by numerous soldiers and civilians who chose to die rather than surrender at the end of World War II.
In 1970, famed author Yukio Mishima and one of his followers committed public seppuku at the Japan Self-Defense Forces headquarters after an unsuccessful attempt to incite the armed forces to stage a coup d'état. Mishima committed seppuku in the office of General Kanetoshi Mashita. His second, a 25-year-old named Masakatsu Morita, tried three times to ritually behead Mishima but failed; his head was finally severed by Hiroyasu Koga. Morita then attempted to commit seppuku himself. Although his own cuts were too shallow to be fatal, he gave the signal and he too was beheaded by Koga.

All of this is in response to AztecRed's one word comment earlier today. Whenever we discuss gun suicides in the U.S., you can be sure the pro-gun crowd will bring up Japan.

It would be hard to find a worse comparison. Totally lacking in American culture is the honorable notion of suicide which has always been so prevalent in Japan. Completely missing are the samurai warriors and the kamakaze pilots, the centuries of art and literature that elevate the act of suicide to something absolutely foreign to Americans.

So, please, stop with the comparisons to Japan every time we mention suicide. I ask this out of respect for common sense and logical thinking, and in spite of what Sebastian explained, I have nothing to offer in return.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Misquoting Yamamoto

One thing you can count on, the gun rights crowd usually gets stuff wrong, or just plain off bullshits you  with things like "more people die from fists than rifles". 

There are a couple of sites that show the quote "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." attributed to Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto are bogus--except for the pro-gun sites that go around quoting it...

Anyway, beside the fact that invading the US would be a logistical nightmare (just look at all the work that went into D-Day), they would like to think that a nation that invaded China during the "age of War Lords" (which as Matthew White points out should clue you in that it was a pistol packer's paradise).  So, they offer some serious nonsense as to why they didn't attack the US mainland as an argument for unrestricted access to firearms...

From FactCheck.Org,

Misquoting Yamamoto

Bookmark and Share
Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."
In an exchange of e-mails he said:
Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.
We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled "gun history lesson" circulating by e-mail.
We make no argument either for or against gun ownership.  But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with .
Of course, the pro-gun side is pretty good at fabricating quotes, or just plain misquotation, since that forms the bulk of their argument that the Second Amendment applies to anything besides an Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 militia.

See also

Philadelphia Murders Up in 2012 reports
The five homicides this weekend bring the city's murder tally to 305 this year, up from 303 at the same time last year, according to the latest statistics available from the police department.
Four of those were by gunfire. Philadelphia now joins Baltimore and Oakland as another city that hasn't seen the benefits of the declining crime rate we keep hearing about. The reason: increased gun availability.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Bob Costas on the Jovan Belcher Tragedy

For those interested, here's Whitlock's entire article without paraphrases.

Steven Colbert on Gay Marriage and the CU Gun Dorm

Reckless Deer Hunters in Iowa Who Shoot Each Other Face No Charges

Local news reports

Two deer hunters were accidentally shot by fellow hunters in separate incidents Sunday morning in Iowa.

The state Department of Natural Resources says 48-year-old Clint Morgan of Saucier, Mississippi was wounded around noon Sunday. Saucier was struck in the elbow by a slug fired by another member of his seven-person party in Monroe County, southwest of Blakesburg. Saucier was taken to a Des Moines hospital for treatment.

Officials say fog was not a factor in this case, but it was a factor in another accidental shooting west of Indianola where 58-year-old Miles Sagen was wounded around 8:30 a.m. by another member of his nine-person party. Sagen was taken to a hospital in Des Moines for treatment.

Iowa DNR recreational safety officer Allen Crouse said Sagen was hit by a slug fired from 144 yards away. At the time, Crouse says it was impossible to see more than 100 yards because of fog. He urges people not to hunt in dense fog because it's not safe.
Is there any excuse for shooting other hunters in the woods? When visibility is poor you cannot take the shot. When you're not sure of your target and it could be another hunter you simply cannot take the shot. What is so difficult about that?

One of the problems is that irresponsible hunters are not held accountable for their actions.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Michigan Gun Store with Inadequate Security Gets Robbed

via The Local Fox news


Sunday, December 2, 2012

Store Clerk Shoots Angry Customer - A False DGU

via TTAG where the Armed Intelligentsia was very proud of the shooter's actions, in spite of Robert's calling him an irresponsible gun owner.

My comments:

That’s because the punch was little more than a slap. But, like the manly gun owner he was, he didn’t have to take it. That’s what being armed is all about. You can be a real man, you don’t have to be afraid to open the door to an angry customer, and if he slaps you in the face a little bit, you can shoot his ass.


That punch did not look like part of a serious attack. It was more of an exclamation point to whatever he was yelling. It wasn’t even that hard and it wasn’t followed by another punch or any aggressive move.

The shooter should be guilty of attempted murder. Gun owners need to exercise better restraint than that.

Jovan Belcher Commits Murder and Suicide

Yahoo news reports

Kansas City Chiefs starting linebacker Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend to death, then drove to the team training facility and killed himself in front of the coach and general manager in a burst of violence on Saturday that stunned the NFL and its fans.

There was no immediate indication from police or others what prompted the 25-year-old Belcher to shoot Kasandra Perkins, 22 with whom he had a 3-month-old child, in the house they shared in Kansas City about 2 miles from the Chiefs' home field at Arrowhead Stadium.

Police spokesman Darin Snapp said Perkins' mother witnessed the killing and called police. Perkins had suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at a hospital.

The mother told investigators that Perkins and Belcher had quarreled just before the shooting but that Belcher had never before been physically abusive with her daughter, Snapp added.

Belcher then drove his car to the team's training facility near the stadium, where he encountered head coach Romeo Crennel and general manager Scott Pioli, then shot himself in the head just as police arrived.
What's your opinion?  Mine is that he was another lawful gun owner who turned out to be dangerous and unfit. Also, I wonder if he'd had a concealed carry permit and if that's been reported to the proper authorities, you know the ones who keep producing those incredible statistics about how safe the permit holders are.

 Please leave a comment.

A Case for More Guns

The Atlantic
There are ways, of course, to make it at least marginally more difficult for the criminally minded, for the dangerously mentally ill, and for the suicidal to buy guns and ammunition. The gun-show loophole could be closed. Longer waiting periods might stop some suicides. Mental-health professionals could be encouraged—or mandated—to report patients they suspect shouldn’t own guns to the FBI-supervised National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although this would generate fierce opposition from doctors and patients. Background checks, which are conducted by licensed gun shops, have stopped almost 1 million people from buying guns at these stores since 1998. (No one knows, of course, how many of these people gave up their search for a gun, and how many simply went to a gun show or found another way to acquire a weapon.)

Other measures could be taken as well. Drum-style magazines like the kind James Holmes had that night in Aurora, which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and which make continuous firing easy, have no reasonable civilian purpose, and their sale could be restricted without violating the Second Amendment rights of individual gun owners.

But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America.


Because it’s too late.

There are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America—many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million new guns enter the market. This level of gun saturation has occurred not because the anti-gun lobby has been consistently outflanked by its adversaries in the National Rifle Association, though it has been. The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message.
I'd like to thank Frail Liberty who suggested the article. Apparently he doesn't know about my short attention span. I did invest the time to read it all, though.

It certainly covered some of our favorite themes.

The one which I quoted, that says it's too late because there are already 300 million guns "out there" is misleading. It makes it sound like the 300 million guns are sitting at supermarket check-out, free for the taking.  The fact is, obviously, every one of those guns is in the possession of someone who has no intention of making it available.  It's his. 

The side effect of so many guns in society is twofold.  Many are passed into the criminal world in various ways and too few of them are available when and where they're needed to stop crime. Increasing the numbers further will increase the bad part of that equation and not affect the other.

The other major argument of the article is "wouldn't increasing the number of concealed carry citizens help."

This is based on the mistaken idea, which we've already discussed at length, that concealed carry permit holders are safer than other people.  I just can't accept that.
Today, more than 8 million vetted and (depending on the state) trained law-abiding citizens possess state-issued “concealed carry” handgun permits, which allow them to carry a concealed handgun or other weapon in public.
This is a loaded statement. The word "vetted" is totally misleading. In states where they require training and testing prior to issuing the license, the requirements are minimal. Almost every applicant already does far more than what's required.  What kind of vetting is that?  In other states, as the parenthetical disclaimer alludes to, there are actually no requirements whatever.

How could people like that be better able to handle firearms than gun owners at large?  Not only is this the contention of the pro-gun folks, regardless of the absence of logic, some of them claim extraordinary and unbelievable factors of improvement.  Frail Liberty recently quoted a study which says CCW permit holders are 13 times safer than other gun owners.

Sorry, when something is so outlandish, I cannot accept it. 

No, I remain strongly convinced that more guns equals more gun violence, not less. The hypothetical question of "in a bad situation wouldn't you want to have a gun handy," in foolish. The answer is obviously yes, but so what?  My belief is guns do more harm than good. For every incident in which a gun saves the day, you've got hundreds in which one is misused.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.