Advertisements
Home

A look into the mind of an Anti-Gun Democrat

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Langniappe’s Lair.

 

Most every gun owner who cherishes their right to Keep and Bear knows whack-job NY Democrat Carolyn McCarthy. She’s the one who first ran for office in the 1996 elections on one single agenda item: Gun Control. She has sponsored and/or voted in favor of more anti-gun legislation than anyone in Congress. Indeed, even her own Wikipedia page has this to say about her: “McCarthy has been described as “the doyenne of anti-gun advocates in the House” and “the fiercest gun-control advocate in Congress”.” In fact, it’s really all she does and all she cares about. Her biggest boasts back when she ran were about how she was going to hold every American gun owner accountable for the bad acts of a very few criminals who possess and use guns illegally.

Well apparently accountability and personal responsibility come to a screeching halt at her own front door. After being an avid cigarette smoker for over four decades, Rep. McCarthy finds herself dealing with the spectre of lung cancer first-hand. So what does she do? Does she quit smoking? Nope. She (are you ready for this?) has her lawyers draw up a lawsuit against seventy different companies that deal with or once dealt with asbestos.

Politician with cancer smoked for 40 years, sues over asbestos

Just wow. This chain-smoking paragon of personal responsibility is trying to score big bucks from seventy different companies over asbestos exposure even though she herself has never worked around or been exposed to asbestos. Because it can’t be from all the cigarettes, right?

I guess it’s easier for her to blame all those other people for her personal problem than it is to look in the mirror and blame herself and her own behavior.

This says a heck of a lot about where our proposed gun control laws come from, doesn’t it? If you’ve ever wondered about the thought processes and the logical ability of gun-controllers in Congress, you need look no further than Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the gun-banners’ poster woman. Divorced from reality and devoid of any sense of personal responsibility? You betcha. Allowed to write and vote on laws that control you and me even though it’s obvious that she’s a few fries short of a Happy Meal? Sadly so.

 

Advertisements

Saved by a Good Person with a Gun

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

 

 

By Rob Morse, October 26th, 2013
Article Source

 

We hear about crazy people who murder for status and notoriety. That story fills the news for days, yet we seldom hear about the ordinary person who stopped a public assault before many people were killed or injured. These silent citizens never wanted notoriety. Wanted or not, these individuals are so important that we must remember what they did. Their actions changed history. We distort reality if we forget them or ignore them. Heaven knows we want more good guys with a gun to protect us because they save so many lives.

We seldom see a middle ground in public violence. In one case, the murderer kills at will until police finally arrive to stop him. In the other case, the murderer’s attack is cut short by a good man on the scene who has a gun. There is a difference between this and simple self-defense. The key distinctions are that there were many potential victims, and a good man with a gun stopped the event before many were injured. Sometimes the good man was an ordinary civilian who happened to have a firearm nearby. Sometimes the good men are former military or off duty police who happen to be at the scene by chance. Let’s not forget that sometimes the good man with a gun is a woman. 80 percent more people will live if a good man with a gun is on the scene of the attack. This is what these brave men and women accomplished.

Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi, 1997 Assistant principal, Joel Myrick, heard shots. He ran to his truck and retrieved his handgun. He then ran to the murderer, dragged him from his car and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived. The murderer was a student who killed his mother minutes before he came to school. The murderer killed two students at school before he was stopped. Myrick saved many lives because he had a gun stored in his truck. The school was a gun-free zone in name only since there was no physical security to keep firearms off campus.

Parker Middle School dance, Edinboro, Pennsylvania,1998 Restaurant owner James Strand grabbed the shotgun he kept at the restaurant and held the murderer until police arrived. The murderer left a suicide note at his home. He then went to the middle school dance and murdered a science teacher who was acting as a chaperone. Another adult and two other students were wounded before the restaurant owner held the murderer at gunpoint. Thank god he had a gun.

Appalachian School of Law, Grundy, Virginia, 2002 A suspended student returned to the law school and murdered the dean, a professor, and a student. Two other students were wounded. Two out-of-state law enforcement officers were on campus. They ran and retrieved handguns from their vehicles when they heard shots. They approached and held the murderer at gun point. The murderer dropped his gun and the officers did not shoot the murderer.

One account says a fellow student grabbed the murderer before he was cornered by the officers. One thing is clear. The murderer killed unarmed people at will. Also, the murderer could not kill anyone once he was confronted by good men with guns. The critical time period is once violence starts until the good guys arrive.

New Life Church, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 2007 The murderer shot up one religious institution hours before he went to New Life Church. The murderer then killed two people and wounded three more in the church parking lot. The murderer entered the church building and was approached by three armed church members coming from different directions. The murderer took his own life after he was wounded by church security member Jeanne Assam. The armed person at the right place and the right time was a woman. Hundreds of people were at risk and there is no doubt they were saved by the actions of these armed church members.

Trolley Square Mall, Salt Lake City, Utah 2007 The murderer was an 18 year old Muslim and self-declared jihadist. He murdered 5 people and wounded four more as he moved from the parking garage into the mall shoutingAlluah Akbar”. He was armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and a backpack full of ammunition.

Off duty police officer Kenneth Hammond was eating at the mall with his wife. After hearing gunfire, he moved towards the sound of the shots. He fired at the murderer. He and Sgt. Andrew Oblad contained the murderer. These officers and an armed SWAT team shot the murder to the ground. The murderer fired 39 shots in six minute and could have killed many more people if he was not confronted and contained by Officer Hammond. The mall was a gun-free zone at the time of the shooting but has since changed its licensed carry policy.

Makor Haim High School, Jerusalem, Israel, 2008 Two Palestinian terrorists wore Israeli military uniforms to enter Makor Haim High School. The terrorists ordered students in the library/study hall to line up against the wall with their hands raised. The terrorists began stabbing the students until two Israeli school counselors drew their personal handguns and killed the terrorists. More than 200 students were at risk. Because the murderers were stopped quickly, only three students were injured, with two of the injuries being moderate in severity.

Golden Market, Richmond, Virginia, 2009 A robber ordered everyone in the store to lie on the floor. The robber then shot the store owner twice. In the process the robber narrowly missed shooting a teenager in the head. The robber shot at other customers and said he would kill them all. An armed patron then shot the robber and wrestled the robber’s gun away. The robber fled and collapsed outside. Some of the store customers shouted for the armed citizen to shoot the robber again and kill him. He did not, though the robber later died of his injuries. The armed customer, a friend of the store owner, saved the lives of the ten people in the store. He wishes to remain anonymous. The store owner recovered from his wounds.

The Golden Market had been robbed at gun point a month earlier. During the month another shop owner was shot and killed nearby. This time a good man with a gun saved innocent lives.

AT&T store, New York Mills, New York, 2010 A gunman with a grudge walked into the AT&T store and shot the clerk behind the counter. The gunman turned with the gun and was shot by off-duty police officer Donald Moore who was waiting in the store as a customer. The gunman had a list of six store employees by name that he wanted to kill.

The gunman died. The clerk recovered from the gunshot to his stomach but remains disabled.

Clackamas Town Center Mall in Clackamas, Oregon, 2012 The murderer ran into the center of the mall with a loaded rifle. The mall is posted as a gun-free zone, but there was no screening or physical security to keep weapons out of the mall. The mall contained 8 to 10 thousand customers and employees at the time of the shooting. The murderer had 145 rounds of ammunition. He killed two people in the food court and wounded one other.

Nick Meli was in the food court area. Meli had a license to carry a weapon and had a handgun on him. He pointed his handgun at the murderer, but did not fire due to innocent people standing behind the murderer. The murderer saw Meli and fled the food court area. The murderer went down a flight of stairs and took his own life before police arrived. Toxicology reports found that the murderer had used marijuana and cocaine. We will never know how many lives Nick Meli saved. We know the murderer did not kill again after meeting armed resistance.

Mayan 14 Theater shooting, San Antonio, Texas 2012 The gunman shot up the China Garden Restaurant where his ex-girl friend worked. Patrons fled the restaurant, and the gunman chased the running crowd into the Mayan 14 Theater. The gunman continued to fire. Off duty policewoman Sergeant Lisa Castellano chased the gunman and shot him four times as he came out of the theater’s bathroom. The gunman lived, and fortunately only two others were wounded. The theater is posted as a gun-free zone but lacks physical security to stop weapons carried into the theater.

These 11 events show the effectiveness of a good man with a gun and the ineffectiveness of “gun-free” zones. I could give you more examples, but how much evidence does it take to convince you that good people with a gun save lives? Both civilians and off duty law enforcement officers are vitally effective. We need more of both, though there are seven times more civilians licensed to carry than there are sworn law enforcement officers in the US. As a peace officer told me, “You call a cop because he’s a good guy with a gun. I need you to protect yourself until I arrive.”

The officer lived through that situation, and I have not, but it makes sense to me.

~_~_

I gave you 1500 words, but we had a lot of history to cover. What say you?

 

 

 

MOMS DEMAND ACTION ATTEMPTS TO SHAME STAPLES TO BAN GUNS

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

They should call themselves Moms in Brown Shirts err Brown Skirts.

These broads need to get a life.

 

After their original letter to Staples CEO Ron Sargent fell on deaf ears, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is stepping up their efforts to shame Staples into banning guns in their stores.

As Breitbart News reported on September 26, Moms Demand Action tried to follow up on Starbucks‘ quasi-ban on open carry of firearms with a plea for Staples to ban guns altogether. But nothing has come of these efforts to date.

Digital Journal reports that Moms Demand Action is now stepping up their efforts. The gun control group has cited how “an accidental shooting in Staples earlier this year demonstrated just how dangerous the presence of guns can be” to call for a store-wide ban.

What Moms Demand Action does not say is that the “accidental shooting” was not a crime–no one in the store was injured other than the gun owner who shot herself in the hand, and the police filed no criminal charges.

Nevertheless, Moms Demand Action remains focused on Staples. They are calling on the office supply retail chain “to immediately” become a gun free zone by “[enacting] a policy to ban guns from all of its stores nationwide.”

This demand ignores the danger law-abiding citizens face when placed in a situation where they are required to be disarmed; see Ft. Hood, the Aurora movie theater, and the D.C. Navy Yard. In such gun-free zones, criminals know they face no opposition and no threat of facing a victim who is capable of defending himself or herself.

 

The Central Planning Solution to Evil

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For the Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

 

By Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog, September 22nd, 2013
Article Source

 

We are not a violent society. We are a society sheltered from violence. No one in Rwanda spends time wondering what kind of man would murder people. They probably live next door to him. If your neighborhood is diverse enough, you might be unfortunate enough to live next door to war criminals all the way from Eastern Europe to Africa.

Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.

It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of liberal social control that the killing sprees imply.

The gun issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.

That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.

Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.

So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.

But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about the belief that the problem isn’t evil, but agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.

It’s the central planning solution to evil.

We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders.

There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.

Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of central planning for shooting people. It’s the individual.

A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders is a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.

Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to.

The bundle of impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.

Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.

Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.

People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.

Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.

Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.

Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?

But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.

The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.

Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.

It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.

Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.

A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.

An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.

Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.

 

Politicians and Gun Free Zones To Blame For Another Tragedy

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Gun Free Zones mean a target rich environment.

Dumb assed laws like passed by Bill Clinton make are military personnel targets.

What a dumb ass our military unarmed on base. 

 

Though the investigation continues, there are several things we already know  about this shooting: It happened in a ‘Gun Free Zone’, it was carried out by a  disturbed individual and finally of course, the liberal left and the media are  demanding more ‘gun-control’, the very thing that contributed to the deaths of  some 12 innocent people.

You would think that after the terrorist attack at Fort Hood when a devout  Muslim Major Nidal Hasan, walked into a U.S. Army pre-deployment center and  conducted his own personal jihad against uniformed service members; 12 murdered,  31 wounded, we would have learned from our mistakes. We did not, in fact our  government made conditions worse.

In his September 13, 2011, TheTacticalWire.com article titled : Voices  From the Field — Domestic Terrorist vs. Our Troops: They don’t stand a  chance, Paul G. Markel laid it on the line with his biting commentary about  how political correctness had contributed to the numbers of innocents killed.  Markel became a United States Marine in 1987. He has spent his entire adult life  in the service of this nation during times of war and peace as a Marine, Police  Officer, and Small Arms and Tactics instructor.

‘In the aftermath the nation was in shock. Many of my family members and  acquaintances were stunned to learn that Hasan was able to walk through the  crowded hall unchecked and fire shot after shot. “How could this happen?” a  family member asked me. “Why didn’t the soldiers shoot back?” The answer was  shocking to those outside of military circles but patently obvious to those of  us who have been there. Every soldier in the center was unarmed. Hasan’s murder  spree was only stopped after two CIVILIAN security officers arrived on scene and  shot him…Disarming the warriors is not a new trend. It has been ongoing since  long before I earned the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. While on active duty I was a  member of the Marine Security Forces Battalion. We were tasked with overseeing  the security of nuclear weapons both on land and sea. As a Corporal of the Guard  I was in charge of the Detachment Armory that contained M-60 machine-guns, M-16  and M-14 rifles, M203 grenade launchers and thousands of rounds of  ammunition.

During duty hours I wore a loaded sidearm and issued pistols, shotgun, and  rifles to my troops. Nonetheless, we were forbidden to possess personally owned  firearms and even our personally owned Ka-Bar fighting knives had to be locked  in a safe in the 1st Sergeants office. Yes, I was trusted with the security of  myriad nuclear weapons but could not be trusted to keep a fighting knife in my  locker.

In the year 2011 with an ongoing war against terrorists worldwide you’d think  the situation would have changed and that every service member would be trained  and armed to fight off attack at any time. Having spent three years (2007 to  2010) teaching small arms and tactics to troops preparing for overseas  deployment to combat I can testify to the fact that is at least as bad if not  worse.’ – Markel

Another contributing factor brought to light by a news organization:  Aaron Alexis, the ex-Navy reservist who killed 12 in the massacre at  Washington Navy Yard, had been treated for mental issues including paranoia, a  sleep disorder and had been hearing voices. Politicians choose to ignore  the part mental illness plays in these mass killings, unless the murderer fits  their profile, and it would be politically advantageous to point it out. For  example, there have been numerous cases in the past where the media has  incorrectly reported that the shooter was: Christian, white, veteran, NRA  supporter, conservative…not the typical profile of one of these mass  murderers.

Then there is the villianization of the gun; but not just any gun, it’s that  evil AR-15! Just to be clear, Alexis did NOT carry an AR with him to the killing  spree: A shotgun and two handguns were recovered.

Washington, D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country,  yet they did absolutely nothing to stop the killing. Regardless of this, right  on cue, politicians and anti-gun pundits demand more ‘gun-control’, disarming  law-abiding citizens and allowing killers to wrack up the body counts. We don’t  need more gun-control, we as Americans want our God-given right to  self-defense!

Read more: KODM.com

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/politicians-gun-free-zones-blame-another-tragedy/#2xxQZXH2EIAjGqR7.99

 

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: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/virginia-gun-crime-drops-as-firearms-sales-soar/?test=latestnews#ixzz2b3hiDyeq

 

Do Students Feel Safer on Gun Free Campuses?

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

The leftist anti gun loons will say they feel safer.

But the honest students will say they do not feel safer.

Gun Free Zones make a target rich environment.

 

A recent state law allows schools to determine whether or not they would allow firearms on campuses or not.  The majority of state colleges and universities in Arkansas didn’t waste time deciding to ban guns from their campuses.

According to the Board of Trustees at Arkansas Northeastern College, students and faculty will feel much safer in the future since they made the campus a gun free zone.  In a move that is sure to increase car break-ins, ANC is allowing students and faculty who commute to the school to bring their firearms to campus providing they leave them locked up and secured in their cars.  I’m sure that criminals who know this are going to start breaking into more cars looking for those concealed and secured guns.

Those conceal-carry weapons may help keep the faculty, staff and students safe in the vehicles but what about when they leave their cars and walk from the parking lot to their destinations on campus?

During the school year, it seems that every week or so I hear about an armed robbery or assault on or near the University of Cincinnati campus.  It is a gun free campus, so anyone walking on campus or leaving the campus is going to be fair prey to would be attackers.  But if you ask Gene Ferrara, chief of the university police what he thinks about allowing conceal-carry weapons on campus so students and faculty can protect themselves, his reply is:

“I don’t think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying.”

Does that make sense to you?  It defies any logic for the idea of self-defense.  Instead, UC officials and police are constantly warning everyone to walk in pairs or groups and avoid walking around at night.  That means they want a woman who works during the day to arrive at the campus for evening classes to wait in her car until she can find someone to walk with, hoping that person is not one of the many perpetrators that seem to hunt the campus.  When class is over later at night, she needs to hope and pray that someone from the class will head to the same parking area, of which there are many.

I wish all of these college officials, trustees and police would talk to Amanda Collins, a student at the University of Nevada, another gun free campus.  Amanda has a conceal-carry permit, but due to the campus gun free policy, she had to leave her gun in her car.  Fifty feet away from the university campus police, Amanda was raped at gunpoint.  She believes that if she had had her gun with her, as she usually did off campus that she could have defended herself or at least stopped the rapist after her attack.  However, she wasn’t armed and he got away, only to rape 2 more women, killing his third victim.  Amanda is now allowed to carry her gun with her on campus, but at great cost to her and two other women.

Officials who believe that gun free campuses and zones are safer, they need to realize that Sandy Hook Elementary School was a gun free zone as was the theater in Aurora, Colorado.  Think about it.  Why would someone target a gun friendly location when they can carry out their criminal intentions in a gun free area where there will be less chance of anyone stopping them?

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/11397/do-students-feel-safer-on-gun-free-campuses/#ixzz2XHMBNm3x

 

Unintended Victims – Gun Controls Impact On The Disadvantaged & Under-Represented Groups

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

Below are the unintended consequences because

of liberal feel good, good intention laws.

How many more people will be harmed in the Future?

 

California –-(Ammoland.com)-She went home from the gun store to endure a ten day cooling off period before she could take her new gun home.

But her estranged husband, the subject of a restraining order, was not cooling off about their pending divorce.

That same evening she was raped, beaten nearly to death, and their son was almost killed by the man he once called “Daddy.”

Every law has unintended consequences. Many have perverse intended consequences. Nowhere are the perverse results more horrific than with gun control laws, because laws relating the legal acquisition of firearms often harm no one except those who are inclined to obey such legislation.

Oddly, it is the most vulnerable among us who are most harmed by ill-conceived gun control laws. According to criminologists, guns are used to prevent violence about six times more often than commit it. In the absence of efficacy as a crime deterrent – a conclusion reached by the National Academy of Science – we should accept that gun control laws endanger people and disproportionately so.

Disempowering Women
The old adage goes: “When a 220 pound rapist attacks a 110 pound woman, the rapist wins. When a 200 pound rapist attacks a 110 pound woman with a revolver, the revolver wins.”

Despite legal equality, the reality is that typically women are physically unequal to men. On average women are weaker, putting woman at a disadvantage during physical altercations with a man. Many thuggish men rely on this, and it shows in the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. Women are nearly as likely to be assaulted as men, but are less physically able to resist. Needless to say, women make up nearly all rapes victims. The curve also disfavors younger women (ages 12-24) who are more prone to being violently attacked than older women.

Given these physical dynamics, a woman’s enhanced ability in defending herself becomes important. According to national victimization surveys gathered by the government, the most commonly advised forms of self-defense or physical resistance are largely ineffective and often downright dangerous. To avoid injury and death, women should avoid physical, or even close contact with their attacker.

But using a gun results in the victim being injured about 1/5th as often as when mere physical resistance was used, and 1/4th of as often when trying to get help. So of all means cataloged, using a gun for self-defense resulted in fewer people suffering at the hands of violent attackers.

This is where gun control really works to a woman’s detriment. Many attacks occur in the home, a place where it takes an average of 8-10 minutes for an officer to arrive … and that is if a woman can reach the telephone and dial 9-1-1. Combined, this makes self-defense a requisite for women. Laws designed to slow or prevent acquisition of firearms make injury from attack more probable, and given physical disparities, make it more likely that women are injured or killed.

Disadvantaged Poor and Minorities
The Los Angeles, California police chief once said “’No guns can be sold to Mexicans and all dealers who have used guns for window displays have been ordered to take them from the windows and to show them to no Mexican until the embargo is lifted.” Granted, this was in 1916. But it shows that be it California or Jim Crow’s south, gun control tends to target minorities. Both at the state and federal level, the fact is that gun control has racist roots.

Violent crime disproportionately affects the poor and economically disadvantaged minorities. This is not because poor people or minorities are inherently violent. You can find people fitting both profiles in rural areas around the country where violent crime is low. The combined symptoms are largely confined to inner-city neighborhoods where violent career criminals devolve into their own poverty, and by doing so influence local culture.

Nonetheless, gun control laws significantly target low income populations, and so minorities. Some states, such as California, have attempted to ban inexpensive firearms (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), making the cost of firearms prohibitive to many in minority communities. Politicians also enact licensing and registration laws that come with associated, and often hefty, fees. Combined, these systems price people out of the firearms market and effectively disarm the law abiding poor in primarily minority districts. And they simultaneously expose the same people to violent career criminals who get black market guns without paying the fees, and drifters who live in those same neighborhoods.

This creates an extremely dangerous situation for minorities, and one that has exacerbated inner-city victimization rates. The homicide rate for blacks is nearly six times higher than for whites, with blacks making nearly half the annual income per household as whites. With lower incomes and an associated inability to afford firearms for self-defense, and living in more violent surroundings where the need for self-defense is most acute, gun control has greatly harmed minorities by disarming them while emboldening violent criminals in their neighborhoods.

Nowhere has this become more evident than in Chicago, Illinois. Having banned private handgun ownership in the early 1980s, Chicago’s homicide rates exploded – second highest rate of major metropolitan cities – with 94.2% of homicides there having black or Hispanic victims. Even though Chicago’s handgun ban has recently been overturned by the courts, to discourage gun ownership the city still puts economic disincentives in front of poor communities in the form of a Chicago Firearm Permit, which costs $100 and which must be renewed every three years. Before even obtaining this permit, an economically challenged citizen must complete a training course at their expense.

Elderly
The mugger weighted more than 200 pounds. His specialty was robbing old ladies in Miami of their Social Security checks. When one retiree resisted, he beat her, shattering an eye socket, fracturing several ribs and leaving her for dead.

Like women, the elderly are vulnerable due to their physical condition, but also due to frequent isolation. Many live alone in less than safe neighborhoods due to the necessity of living frugally. The elderly are particularly vulnerable during “hot home invasion” robberies where they may face multiple attackers, or an attacker with a gun.

Being easier targets on small fixed incomes puts elderly people in a uniquely dangerous position. Affording firearms may be economically challenging, especially in metropolitan centers where politicians have imposed significant fees and training requirements. In some states, not being allowed to obtainconcealed carry permits prevents older Americans from meaningful self-defense in public, where attacks are more likely.

The elderly are more than capable of armed self-defense when gun control does not prevent it. Jay Leone was 90 years old when an armed burglar broke down the door of his San Francisco area home. Leone managed to get his own firearm, and even after being shot by the burglar, wounded and held his attacker for the police. Despite such routine occurrences, some politicians have suggested forcibly disarming senior citizens under the false comparison to rescinding driver’s licenses (public roadways and private homes have vastly different jurisdictional rules).

Children
In Merced, California, two children were murdered by a man with a history of violence, drug abuse and mental illness. — He used a pitchfork.

The oldest child escaped and she called the police, who arrived far too late to protect her siblings. The children’s father had taught all his children how to shoot, and his oldest girl received her hunter safety certificate at age 12. She also knew where her dad kept his handgun, stowed away locked from her access in obedience to California’s “safe storage” law. She could not get the those guns and save her nine and seven year old brother and sister.

Well intended as they may be, gun control laws to protect children are statistically misplaced. Accidental firearm deaths in America have been steadily falling for decades, and in the last reporting year, only 62 children died from firearm accidents (a little more than one child per state for the entire year). Protecting children from firearms is a low priority compared to other deadly situations (twenty two times as many children are accidentally killed in traffic).  Childproofing also has indirect endangerments. If a parent is hindered in using a firearm in defense of their children, then gun control laws that designed to protect kids may do just the opposite.

 

First; do no harm
Laws should never deprive someone of their rights. Chief among human rights is the right of survival and that includes the means to stay alive. The American Second Amendment was crafted for many reasons, and among the publicly debated justifications was to ensure that the weakest among us had an equal right and chance to live. That gun control laws rob them of these basic rights is inhuman.

————

Victimization data:

Criminal Victimization, 2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics

 

Police response time:

 

Chicago homicide data:

Chicago Murder Analysis, City of Chicago Police Department, 2011

 

BIO:
C.D. “Chuck” Michel is one of the leading authorities on 2nd Amendment issues and gun rights ordinances. As one of the chief litigators for the NRA, author of “CA Gun Laws”, Adjunct Professor at Chapman University and Senior Partner at Michel & Associates law firm, Mr. Michel has been an integral figure in defining gun rights legislation since 1991.

Mr. Michel has won numerous high- profile cases for the NRA, including lawsuits striking down proposition H, the San Francisco  law banning possession of handguns within city limits, Assembly Bill 962 requiring ammunition registration and filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court cases “District of Columbia v. Heller” and “McDonald v. Supreme Court.”

Mr. Michel worked as a criminal prosecutor for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and as an advocate with the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office. He litigated many high-profile cases while at the renowned international law firm O’Melveny & Myers, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and served as staff counsel to the Christopher Commission.

Mr. Michel has been lauded on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate for his professionalism, fairness and ability to engage in a thoughtful, respectful discourse concerning an emotionally charged subject matter.

Mr. Michel brings this unique combination of open engagement, transparency and a self-deprecating wit to every interview which has made him a favorite among the media and respected by both, opposition and 2nd Amendment supporters.

 

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/unintended-victims-gun-controls-impact-on-the-disadvantaged-under-represented-groups/#ixzz2RKJxwOSM

 

Americans Want More Guns!

Leave a comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

The Progressives  Communist have been saying for

decades Americans do not bee a gun for protection.

Yet they have armed bodyguards and live in gated

communities with armed guards at the gates.

 

Contrary to what the angry and petulant Obama claimed after his gun-control measures were shot down in the Senate, most Americans believe having a gun in the home makes the home a safer place.

President Obama and Veep Biden have been asserting that 90% of US citizens want stricter gun control laws, however, an ABC Poll proves quite the opposite to be true. Since 2000, the public opinion has dramatically reversed itself. And if gun owners are questioned, the positive response is 75%.

Based on these latest findings, it’s evident more Americans want more guns in homes for protection.  And perhaps a sign out front declaring the house a gun-filled rather than gun-free zone?

Sounds like an idea the founders would heartily approve!

gunsafer

 

 

Shadow of the Gun

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

It is well worth your time to read.

 

By Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog. March 13th 2013

Article source

 

Gun CloudEvery day another one of the stories comes in. A teacher panicked by a plastic gun, an army man on a cupcake, a t-shirt, a pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun or a finger gun hits the panic button. Supensions and lectures quickly follow as the latest threat to the gun-free zone, usually in the form of a little boy, is tackled to the ground and lectured to within an inch of his life.

Tellingly these incidents rarely take place in the inner city schools where teenage gang members walk through metal detectors at the start of the day. The safety officers in those schools, big weary men with eyes that look everywhere at once, don’t waste their time on toys. Not unless those toys are full-size, painted black and filed down to look like real guns.

It’s usually the schools where a shooting is wholly unlikely; where gun violence is not a daily reality, but an unlikely convergence of horror, that institutional vigilance hits an irrational peak as every school imagines that it could be the next Columbine or the next Sandy Hook.

The NRA’s initial proposal of armed school guards was met with an irrational chorus of protests. More guns aren’t the answer, was the cry. And the leading crier was the White House’s expert skeet shooter. In a country where law enforcement is heavily armed and gunmen are stopped by gunmen in uniforms, a strange Swedenization had set in. The problem was not the man, it was the gun. Get rid of the guns and you stop the killing. Schools across the country are banning not the gun, but the idea of the gun. It is a conceptual prohibition that is meant to push away the threat of gun violence by eliminating any mention of the G word. Gun-free zones mean places where guns cannot be mentioned, depicted or even symbolized as if the refusal to concede the existence of a firearm will eliminate the threat of it being used on the premises.

This isn’t a precautionary attitude, but a pacifist one. Gun horror is not a productive emotion, but learned helplessness disguised as moral superiority. Rather than teaching children to hate killers, schools are instead teaching them to hate guns. And reducing murders to instruments rather than morals, children are left with no sense of right and wrong, only an instinctive horror of violence.

DronePacifists have always demonized armies rather than invaders. During WWI they obsessed over gas. During WW2, it was the bomber and the tank. During the Cold War they demonized nuclear weapons. In the War on Terror, they target the drone. By dealing with the object rather than the subject, they are able to avoid the question of moral responsibility. Rather than hold the Nazis, Communists or Islamists accountable for their actions, they extended a blanket condemnation over the weapons-wielders.

The American GI was just as bad as the SS man or the Kamikaze pilot or the Political Commissar. The only difference was in who had the bigger guns. And the one with the bigger guns, was also the most to blame.

That same attitude can be seen today when Israel is blamed for every battle with Islamic terrorists because it has the bigger guns. Rather than evaluating the nature of a conflict and the values of both sides, the pacifists score every war based on firepower.

While the left likes to indulge in stereotypes of gun-toting rednecks and bomb-brandishing generals, the only people who judge the worth of a man by his weapon are the pacifists, the gun-fearers and gun-hiders who mythologize weapons as black agents of evil.

To believe that there is no such thing as constructive violence is to reject free will. Without accepting the necessity of constructive violence, there is no good and evil, only armed men and unarmed men. Without constructive violence, two boys playing cops and robbers in the schoolyard are not acting out a childish morality play, they are becoming desensitized to murder, and without it a child with a pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun is on the way to being a school shooter.

If there is no such thing as constructive violence, then the police officer is not the solution to crime, he is part of the cycle of violence. And if that cycle of violence does not begin with a man choosing to use a gun for good or evil, then it must begin with the gun. The man becomes the object and the gun becomes the subject. American ICBMs become just as bad as Russian ballistic missiles. An Israeli soldier killing a suicide bomber is just as bad as the terrorist. There are no good guys with guns. To have a gun is to be the bad guy.

Feinstein with ARFor decades the gun-control lobby has brandished assault rifles at press conferences and spent more time describing their killing power than their manufacturers have. The rifle has been upgraded to the assault rifle and now, in the latest Orwellian vernacular used by the White House and the entire media pyramid beneath it, weapons of war.

The dreaded assault rifle or weapon of war or killing machine of mass death actually kills rather few Americans. The average shooter doesn’t bring an AR-15 to a Chicago gangland dispute. Despite the number of these weapons in private hands, most of the killing takes place with handguns in the same parts of the country where large amounts of illegal drugs are sold, women trafficked and stores robbed.

Shootings in America are not caused by guns, they are caused by crime. Guns really do not walk off store shelves and go on killing sprees. That’s what criminals are for. But the trouble with that discussion is that it takes us into moral territory. Talking about guns is easy, talking about souls is not. If guns don’t kill people, then we have to ask the difficult question of what does kill people.

It’s a bigger question than just Adam Lanza pulling the trigger in a classroom full of children. It is a big question that encompasses the Nazi gas chambers and the Soviet gulags, the Rape of Nanking and September 11. It is a question as big as all of human history.

Pacifists once used to be able to address such questions, but they have become obsessed with the technology of violence, rather than the spiritual origin of violence. And the technology of violence is largely beside the point. Guns do not motivate people to kill. Nor do they represent that much of a quantum increase in death.

Some of history’s worst massacres happened long before firearms became useful for more than scaring off peasants. The heavily armed Americans of the 50s had lower per capita murder rates than medieval London. It isn’t the gun that makes the killer. It’s not the hand that kills, but the mind.

Soda banThe gun-free society has little interest in individuals. Its technocratic philosopher-kings want big and comprehensive solutions. Their answer to gun violence is to feed a horror of guns. Their answer to obesity is to ban sodas. Their solutions invariably miss the point by treating people like objects and objects like people.

In the Middle Ages, rats were put on trial for eating crops. Today we put guns on trial for killing people. The left has tried to reduce people to economics, to class and then race, gender and sexual orientation. It has done its best to reduce people to the sum of their parts and then to tinker with those parts and it has failed badly. The best testimony of its profound spiritual failure is that the worst pockets of gun violence are in urban areas that have been under the influence of their sociologists, urban planners, psychologists, social justice activists, community organizers and political rope-pullers for generations. And what have those areas brought forth except malaise, despair, blight and murder?

Banning guns will do as much for those areas as banning drugs did. It is not the shadow of the gun that has fallen over Chicago, but an occlusion of the spirit. Social services have had generations to save the city and they have failed because the technocracy can reach the body, but it cannot reach the soul.

Fight for libertyThe gun-control activists drew the wrong lesson from Newtown as they drew the wrong lessons from WW2 and September 11. The lesson is not that weapons are bad, the lesson is that people in the grip of evil ideas are capable of unimaginable horrors regardless of the tools at their disposal. A single man can kill a classroom full of children with a gun and a few men can kill thousands with a few box cutters. It isn’t the tool that matters. It’s the man.

Unwishing the gun brings us back to the sword. Unwishing the sword brings us back to the spear. Unwishing the spear brings us back to the stone club. And what then? When every weapon that ever existed or will exist is undone, all that remains is the deadliest weapon of all. The mind of man.

The gun, the sword, the spear and the club took countless lives and saved countless lives. Civilization has always balanced on a future made possible by little boys playing cops and robbers and playing with little green army men. They can either grow up to be the protectors of the future or the frightened men who will stand aside and do nothing when they hear the screams begin to come because they have been told that all violence is evil.

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: