Cops in New York Using Gun Classifieds Site ARMSLIST To Trap Gun Owners? Maybe.

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Saves Lives.

This is a scary prospect for the people  of New York if this

story is true..

How many people have their rights violated by these Gestapo tactics?

This interesting post on ARMSLIST was brought to our attention by a reader.

Here is the text from the ad, posted from an anonymous account (spelling errors part of original post),


Hmmm, definitely interesting to say the least.

On some level it seems to make sense if you want to catch gun owners with unlicensed guns in a state with registration.

Remember, New York has a gun registry. Attempting to buy 9mm ammo but the only gun you have registered is a .45. Could that be enough for cops to search your home? In pretty much every other state I’d say absolutely not, but remember this is New York we’re talking about.

It was widely reported a couple of weeks ago that New York City residents had started receiving surrender/confiscation notices about long guns that might be illegal under city law, so perhaps there is a state wide crack down on guns.

Of course, we have no way to verify whether this post is true or if it’s just some classic interwebz trolling.


Proposed Law Would Force Parents to Disclose Gun Ownership to School District

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

How many more laws will be passed to strip Americas

Gun owners’ rights?

Wake up gun owners before you have no rights left.


[An egregious violation of personal privacy]


By Michael Schaus. December 20th, 2013
Article Source



Apparently, liberals have a plan to bring an end to school shootings: Make disclosure of firearm ownership mandatory for all families enrolled in public education. According to the Missouri Torch:

A pre-filed bill in the Missouri Senate would require parents of public school students to report to the school if they own a gun.

Why don’t we just cut right to the chase, and write a law instructing would-be mass-shooters to report their intentions well ahead of time? Or, heck, we could just outlaw the act of killing innocent school children. And I’m sure criminals, owners of illegal weapons, and potentially dangerous sociopaths will be more than happy to follow along with such equally ridiculous legislation. Right?

More than being an egregious violation of personal privacy, the bill highlights the impotence of progressive “solutions” to violence conducted with firearms. Compulsory disclosure of gun ownership provides the authorities with such little actionable or useful information it is almost not worth mentioning.

Of course, in in places like New York, such disclosure of firearm ownership is actually aiding authorities. Without a public registry of firearm licenses, authorities in NYC would have a far more difficult time confiscating weapons from law-abiding gun owners who have accidently run afoul of newly enacted gun laws.

The Missouri proposal, however, does not call on parents to disclose the specific firearms they own… See, according to Liberals, all guns are evil – and all gun owners merit increased scrutiny and surveillance by authorities. (Wow… And you wonder why people with guns don’t like more gun laws… Weird.)

The Missouri Torch reported:

This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a weapon within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a weapon. The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a weapon.

Naturally, the question arises: What the heck is this proposal actually supposed to accomplish? Aside from giving schools (read: government) a list of the county’s child-bearing gun owners, actionable intelligence (and almost any other kind of intelligence as well) is non-existent.


California gun owners warily eye rifle, shotgun database requirement

Leave a comment

This is from The Sacramento Bee.

How long before Moonbeam Brown decides to use this

database to start confiscating guns?

Give the way Kalifornia has trampled on the residents of the

states Second Amendment rights it is possible. 

Neither Matt Dittmer nor the people he shoots with are happy about a new law that will preserve information about their gun purchases in a California state database. But he is resigned to it.

“I don’t like it, but I’m living in a state where I don’t have a choice,” Dittmer said as he stopped by Auburn Outdoor Sports on a recent afternoon to buy a sleek black AR rifle.

In the aftermath of a horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, California lawmakers advanced dozens of gun control measures in 2013. Despite that fervor for tougher firearms laws, the most stringent and far-reaching measures largely failed. The discards included a bill by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg D-Sacramento, that would have outlawed semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

Even as those bills met their demise, a previously passed gun control measure loomed. Assembly Bill 809, signed into law in 2011, imposes on rifles and shotguns the same record-keeping requirements that currently apply to handguns.

Starting on Jan. 1, 2014, the California Department of Justice will retain information on long-gun purchases, data it had formerly been compelled to destroy within five days. Dealers will need to register purchases with the state.

Dittmer said it wouldn’t influence the types of firearms he chooses to purchase, despite his view that the measure is symptomatic of California’s increasingly constricting gun restraints.

“It won’t affect me personally,” Dittmer said, “because I do abide by all the laws.”

While Dittmer said his shooting range compatriots are anticipating the law, it was the first that Nancy Stewart, who had stopped in to pick up a pair of .22-caliber rifles to expand the family collection, had heard of it. Stewart said the measure wouldn’t deter her from buying a gun. But it did give her pause.

“You wonder, what does this information mean?” said Stewart, a 55-year-old paralegal who lives in Grass Valley. “My ultimate concern is if someone knocks on my door and says you’ve got three guns, we need two of them.”

Other reactions among gun advocates range from bewildered to disturbed.

“This is the one that sends the tremor, that reaches every owner in the state,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “It is the one that scares us the most.”

Supporters of the legislation said it closes a dangerous gap in California’s gun laws, creating uniformity in firearms regulations by treating pistols and rifles the same.

“One of the things the Legislature found persuasive is that long guns play a large role in our state’s epidemic of gun violence,” said Juliet Leftwich, legal director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of AB 809’s sponsors.

Dozens of police chiefs backed the bill as an addition to their law enforcement arsenal. They said it will bolster efforts to trace guns recovered at crime scenes and to seize guns from people legally barred from owning them because of past crimes or mental illness. Officials will have more comprehensive gun purchase data to compare against California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons list, a catalog of people banned from owning guns that the Legislature fortified with an extra $24 million this year.

It will also help protect officers conducting criminal investigations by informing them of the type of firepower they might encounter, said Fairfield police Chief Walt Tibbet.

“Currently the one area we are very vulnerable in is trying to understand the availability of long guns, and more and more we’re seeing suspects with either rifles or sawed-off rifles,” Tibbet said.

“It’s not our intent to take guns away from law-abiding citizens,” he added. “I’m trying to keep my officers from being shot.”

Gun owners critical of the law argue it will target people who purchase their guns legally and leave a paper trail, rather than those who obtain their guns illicitly.

“It really does nothing to address the criminals themselves,” said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, one of a minority of law enforcement officials to openly oppose the bill. “Generally, the criminals that have firearms, they aren’t on any database.”

Beneath questions about the law’s effectiveness lies a sense of unease about how the trove of data will be used. Many gun owners see a sinister intent behind a measure tied to confiscating guns, Paredes said. He predicted that fear would lead to a surge in sales before the new law kicks in.

“Everybody is running down to the local gun store and buying whatever long guns they want to have and don’t want the government to know they have it,” Paredes said. “I think between now and Dec. 31, you’ll see quite a run on long guns.”

Auburn Outdoor Sports would seem to affirm Paredes’ forecast. The store has run ads bearing the phrase “LEGISLATIVE ALERT” and warning that customers have until the new year “to purchase your non-registered rifle or shot gun.”

But Billy Prior, the store’s owner, said he has not seen an influx of customers looking to buy guns before the law changes. Prior, 48, has been in the business long enough to see how people react to new regulations, and he said younger gun owners already expect registration. The loudest dissenters, Prior predicted, will soon adapt.

“Some people say, ‘Forget it, I’m not buying a gun after the first of the year.’ They’re going to buy what they want now,” Prior said. “But what’s going to happen is six months from now, a year from now, something is going to come out, they’re going to want it and they’re going to buy it.”

Anecdotal evidence has long-gun sales ranking “somewhere between average and exceptional” this month, according to Brandon Combs, president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees. That could reflect a seasonal phenomenon, Combs said, as people head to gun stores to pick out Christmas presents.

Still, Combs has heard skepticism of how the new purchase record requirements will play out. His organization is already mulling lawsuits on behalf of gun owners Combs said were mistakenly flagged by the state as ineligible to possess firearms.

“I think it’s not entirely unfounded, a fear of the state misusing the information,” Combs said.

Only people who pose a legitimate public-safety risk will have anything to worry about, said Steve Lindley, director of the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms.

“If you do become prohibited, we are going to come confiscate your firearms,” Lindley said. “But only people who have done something in their life – committed a felony, committed a violent misdemeanor, they are a fugitive from justice or they have been deemed mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. We need to take action and prevent those people from possessing firearms.”

That prohibited class represents a small sliver of California’s population of gun owners, Lindley said. Otherwise, gun owners can rest easy: His department has no plans to “go out and confiscate people’s firearms for no reason.”

“We still have our Second Amendment rights here in California,” he said.

Read more here:



EDITORIAL: Notre Dame philosophy professor: ‘Most of us don’t have a good reason to keep guns in our homes’

Leave a comment

This is from

These are the types of liberal propagandist that are teaching

in our institutes of higher learning.

They have even infiltrated the elementary,junior and

senior high schools.

More reasons to homeschool your children.


“Should I own a gun?”

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)

                                                  Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)


That is the question that Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, asks in a recent New York Times opinion piece.

His conclusion to that question is, as one might expect from an academic at an elite university, pretty predictable. He writes, “Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes.”

He arrives at this conclusion after suggesting that “guns are dangerous” and that the net effect of owning one has the potential to create more harm than good, even if one has a firearm for the sole purpose of self-defense within the home.

“I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident,” Gutting imagines.

He also dismisses the idea that firearms are needed to protect against a tyrannical government, noting that resistance against our military would be futile.

“Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy,” he said. “The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.”

Furthermore, he argues that hunting is now largely recreational, no longer the primary means by which a family sources food. As such, firearms don’t need to be kept at home, but can be secured elsewhere.

“Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season,” he states. “Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.”

Ultimately Gutting hinges one’s Second Amendment right not on the premise of personal choice of a citizen living in a free society, but on need. Do you actually need a firearm?

He writes, “It’s easier to get people to see that they don’t want something than that they don’t have a right to it. Focusing on the need rather than the right to own a gun, many may well conclude that for them a gun is more a danger than a protection. Those fewer guns will make for a safer country.”

It’s a very seductive rhetorical approach to the debate. And quite truthfully, it’s effective. When one thinks about it, and theoretically speaking, no one really needs a gun. On a day to day basis in most parts of the country, one can function just fine without a firearm.

However, just because I don’t need a firearm, doesn’t mean I don’t want one. I want a firearm because I don’t want to be a victim. I don’t want to get mugged, raped or murdered. It’s that simple. I can live day-to-day without a gun, but should I ever find myself in a life-threatening situation, I want a firearm handy so that I stand a chance at defending myself, my family and my property.

Sure, I can carry other arms (such as knives) for self-defense, but I want the most effective tool available, which happens to be a firearm.

It should also be said that one can play the ‘need’ game with any right or privilege. I don’t really need a car, do I? After all, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which causes global warming (allegedly), which is a threat to humanity, I can find other modes of transportation that would reduce my carbon footprint, public and private sources (metros). I can also carpool with someone else, purchase a bike or walk to where I need to go.

Likewise, people really don’t need free speech. Do we? The government can pretty much can tell us all we need to know, can’t it? People in North Korea live under a regime that imposes censorship and they’re surviving, aren’t they (a perfect example of what happens when a government determines the needs of the people vs. the people determining the needs of the government)?

Anyways, you see where I’m going with that line of reasoning. Aside from food, shelter, clothing, there’s not much a human being really ‘needs’ to live on planet earth.

I should also note that statistically speaking, guns are used more by law-abiding citizens in self-defense situations than they are used by criminals or mentally-deranged sociopaths. So, the notion that owning a firearm is a net danger or threat to the average, responsible individual is untenable.

As a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released back in June found, “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed.

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” it stated.

So, there you go. Do you need a gun? No. Should you have one? Yeah, I think so. But then again, it’s up to you to deicide, something I suppose both Gutting and I agree on.

Your thoughts?


Build Gun Shops as Sanctuaries Against Gun Violence

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This idea could not make Chicago any worse crime wise.


Imagine you are speaking to a friend. He claims his kids are straight ‘A’ students. The reason they are is that he has developed a system that guarantees better grades. No matter what the situation, he can better anyone’s grades.


Your logical reaction to such a claim is, “show me the proof.” Don’t just throw out these wild claims. Show me what your children’s grades were prior and what they are now. Then show me that it was your system that caused the positive change.

It seems reasonable for him to have to prove his system is a success, is it not? You wouldn’t just sign your children on without some proof, would you?

So why is it that we don’t view gun control in the same way? There is not a shred of evidence that disarming citizens makes us safer, yet the left has been clamoring to do just that.

There are organizations like Demand, whose slogan is Demand Action to End Gun Violence.”

They want us all to “Join more than 1,000 mayors and over 1.5 million grassroots supporters to demand that Congress take action to end gun violence.”

There are self-righteous actors and actresses who cry and plead for us to “Demand a Plan” to end gun violence, many starring in action movies that kill more in the span of the movie than have been killed in all American mass shootings nationwide.  Many also have their own armed security.

Yet interestingly, none of these nimrods is “Demanding a Plan” for a city like Chicago where 80% of those murdered are black and 83% of all murders are committed with a gun.

According to new crime statistics released by the Federal Bureau of InvestigationChicago has become America’s murder capital. There were 500 murders in Chicago last year (2012), the FBI said, surpassing New York City, which had 419. However, the Chicago Police have disputed that figure of 500. They claim it was more like between 506 and 532. Stupid FBI. The Feds can’t get anything right.

Yet Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel signed the petition Mayors Against Illegal Guns. How is it possible that Chicago has become murder-central? Didn’t the murderers get the memo that the mayor signed the petition? You mean that wasn’t good enough?

In September IBD reported that “Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, an avid gun-control advocate and opponent of Illinois’ concealed carry law, held another of what has become a series of press conferences displaying guns seized by Chicago cops — some 5,095 in the first 37 weeks of 2013 — along with a lecture on crime and gun control. But he inadvertently found common ground with Second Amendment defenders when he noted that while guns are being seized, the gun criminals are often allowed to go free.”

“We seize nine guns for everyone that the NYPD seizes,” McCarthy said. “That’s not success that we’re talking about,” he added. “We’re talking about the fact that they shouldn’t be here in the first place and when we arrest those people — they don’t go to jail.”

Yet, to these leftist idiots, the guns are the problem.

Not a single gun shop or gun range can be found in Chicago because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the city had gone too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

A gun shop has more firepower per square foot than anywhere, short of a military armory. Ever wonder why we never here of anyone robbing a gun store? Me either. Therefore logic would dictate that a gun shop is one of the safest places in America, yet the left would have people believe more guns automatically equals more violence and more killing. And we gun owners are all a bunch of lunatic would-be killers.

So, as a gun-toting lunatic, I say we “Demand a Plan” to place a gun shop on every street corner in the city of Chicago. There is certainly more empirical data that my idea is more legitimate than banning guns. As an added benefit, anyone being threatened by a gun-toting lunatic can simply duck into the nearest gun shop and claim sanctuary.

Problem solved.


Americans Doubt Reliability of ‘Smart Guns’; Won’t Buy Them and Oppose Their Mandate, NSSF Poll Finds

Leave a comment

This is from Buckeye Firearms Association.

Smart guns like Smart cars are a stupid idea.

I will not buy a smart gun.

I will oppose the attempt to mandate them.



NEWTOWN, Conn. — By a wide majority, Americans are skeptical of the reliability of technology intended to prevent all but authorized users of a firearm from being able to fire it. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy such a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?,” only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Only 16 percent thought “smart guns” would be very or somewhat reliable. Some 10 percent responded “don’t know.” Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

To the question, “How likely would you be to purchase a gun with smart gun technology that prevented it from firing except for specific authorized users?” an overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a firearm. Only 14 percent of those polled said that they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a “smart gun.”

Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.

The poll conducted Oct. 7-8 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation does not oppose the development of owner authorized technology for firearms and, should such products come to market, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase them. However, we do oppose legislative mandates that would require manufacturers to produce only such firearms,” said Larry G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. “We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on this issue. We are not surprised, frankly, to find that the majority of those polled were skeptical of this technology, although the margins were perhaps higher than even those of us familiar with the arguments would have expected. We are encouraged by the fact that seven out of ten of those surveyed did not believe the government should mandate the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach of so-called ‘smart gun’ technology.”



Is A Home Based Federal Firearms License Even Possible?

Leave a comment

This is from Ammoland.

This article should give hope to everyone wanting to open a gun shop at home.

i know it has made me feel better about making the move to open a shop.


Home Based FFL by the Numbers

    Sioux Falls, SD-( Have you ever walked into your local gunshop and said you were thinking of getting an FFL, from your home address?

How long did it take the entire staff at the local gunshop to tell you that you are an idiot and that getting a home based FFL is impossible?

This scenario plays out every day and continues to contribute to the urban legend that a home based (kitchen table) FFL approval is illegal and impossible!

We decided to do a little research and see exactly what percentage of FFL holders actually have a “commercial” address.

If the gunshop was correct, the commercial addresses for the FFL’s physical addresses would be 100%.  We went to the ATF website and downloaded all the USA FFL holder’s information, which includes their physical address.  We then found a website that has the same database as the US postal service uses to determine if an address is residential or commercial,  We decided to remove pawnshops (Type 02 FFL holders) and then we uploaded the data to for determining whether the address was a commercial or residential address.

We were shocked to find that 64% of the FFL holders are home based.  California was at 49%, New Jersey at 51% and even Massachusetts at 42%….

Why would anyone want a FFL?  If you asked every FFL holder why they applied, we suspect the answer would be to buy firearms at wholesale prices.  ATF won’t approve 100% personal usage, so you will need to be willing to help others with transfers and maybe help a few friends get some great deals!

Normally the gun hobby turns into applying for an FFL and then as time evolves you can expand and grow as you see fit or let expire after three years when time to renew!

Data from the article was provided by, the leaders in helping gun enthusiasts get their FFL correctly the first time.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Credit card firm cuts off nation’s No. 1 gun store — for selling guns

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

More push back from the gun haters industry.

It is time for Visa card holders to call and raise Hell.

Maybe gun owners that have Visa cards to cut them up and switch credit cards.


A subsidiary of Visa, a key Obama campaign donor, that specializes in credit card transactions has abruptly stopped servicing the nation’s largest gun store after four years because the store sells guns, a fact the owners never hid.

Hyatt Gun Shop of Charlotte, N.C., told Secrets that the subsidiary,, simply sent an email to owner Larry Hyatt to announce that it was suddenly breaking off the business relationship. The reason: “The sale of firearms or any similar product.”

The company email said that gun sales violated a section of the service agreement the two signed over four years ago and after Hyatt went into detail about its sales and products — and name.

“We’ve never seen anything like this,” said Justin Anderson, Hyatt’s marketing director. He said it took a week and thousands of dollars to line up a “gun friendly” credit card processor for online sales.

The brushoff of Hyatt’s business has sparked a national boycott effort against and parent company CyberSource organized by the website Grass Roots North Carolina. “It looks like the small but noisy anti-gun crowd has gotten to what must be a jelly-spined PR department at CyberSource and Authorize.Net. Either that, or leadership at these companies have simply become anti-gun all on their own,” said the website in announcing the boycott.

Anderson suspects that the company, purchased by Visa in 2010, got cold feet dealing with a leading gun seller and he said that he’s heard of other gun stores being dropped. The company had no immediate comment.

The sudden move comes just two weeks after the Washington Navy Yard shootings which were followed by a plea for more gun control from President Obama.

Several Visa executives contributed to the president’s re-election campaign. Their total was $21,780, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Below is the short email notice from

Dear Hyatt Gun Shop Inc,

Authorize.Net LLC (“Authorize.Net”) has determined that the nature of your business constitutes a violation of Section 2.xiv of the Authorize.Net Acceptable Use Guidelines and Sections 3.3 and 11.3 of the Authorize.Net Service Agreement (the “Agreement”). These sections include, but are not limited to, the sale of firearms or any similar product. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4 of the Acceptable Use Guidelines, your ability to access and use the Authorize.Net Services will be terminated on September 30, 2013.



Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

This is outrageous.

Take notice it took place on the left coast.


Seattle — One man was left trembling after another pulled a loaded firearm on him and reportedly demanded that he apologize to black people for all the wrongs white people have done to them. Police arrested the suspect, finding the firearm and ammunition.

Chikwanha E. Nyashanu, 35-years old, is being held on $100,000 bail with prosecutors seeking to increase the amount to $500,000, according to Brandi Kruse of “King County District Court Judge Arthur R. Chapman called his actions ‘inexplicable’ and deemed him a danger to the community,” she wrote.

The incident reportedly occurred after 9 PM. After the alleged victim called police, the suspected perpetrator was soon arrested–after being tased. Nyashanu was reportedly identified by the victim as the “same person who had just pointed a handgun at him for 15-20 seconds and demanded he apologize for all the things white people did to black people,” reported Kruse.

She added that court documents revealed the suspect as a black male and the victim as a white male.

If the allegations against Nyashanu prove true, the entire ordeal could have been avoided had the alleged gunman devotedly watched MSNBC’s Chris Matthews evening program, as Matthews recently apologized on behalf of all white people.


Virginia gun crime drops, as state’s firearms sales soar

Leave a comment

This is from  Fox News.

Some of the nattering nay bobs is this article are trying to down

play the statistics showing a crime rate drop. 

It is funny to hear these clowns trying to spin thing their way.


Amid calls nationwide for stricter gun control laws, Virginia is experiencing a unique trend: the state’s gun-related crime is declining but firearms sales are increasing.

Firearms sales rose 16 percent to a record 490,119 guns purchased from licensed gun dealers in 2012, according to sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

During the same period, major crimes committed with firearms dropped 5 percent to 4,378.

“This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don’t necessarily lead to more crime,” said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.

“It’s a quite interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crimes,” Baker told the newspaper. “While you can’t conclude from this that tougher laws wouldn’t reduce crime even more, it really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy a gun would have any effect on crime.”

But he cautioned against drawing any conclusions that more guns in the hands of Virginians are causing a corresponding drop in gun crime.


Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said that the real question is how many guns are sold without a background check.

“In other words, if people who buy those guns and have a background check, and keep those guns and don’t sell them, then you would not expect that those guns would affect the crime rate,” Horwitz told the newspaper. “The important analysis is not the total number of guns sold with a background check, but rather the number of guns sold without a background check.”

Virginia State Police conduct instant background checks on everyone seeking to purchase a gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer in Virginia.

The newspaper said it had asked Baker in 2012 to examine six years’ worth of gun transaction data compiled by Virginia State Police through the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center. He then compared the data with state crime figures for the same period. Baker recently reviewed updated transaction figures obtained by the newspaper and compared them with the years he originally examined.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said that the data show that most of the guns being sold are “going to decent people”.

“That’s not going to affect crime and, in fact, all those extra guns can actually work to lower crime because those are going into the hands of (concealed) permit holders or people using them to defend their homes,” Van Cleave told the newspaper.

Click for more from  The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: