Anti-Gunners Only Like It When Lots of People Die

Lots of anti-gun uproar after Columbine and Virginia Tech.

No anti-gun uproar after Wisconsin.

Why not?

Stop Gun Violence By Stopping Crime

This this this, folks. Take notes.

Violent crime plunged this year in Richmond, a fact not lost on flatland residents long plagued by endemic gunfire.

[...]

In Richmond, officials view the statistical change as evidence that the new approaches seem to help....

"We are gradually implementing a number of new programs, and we've made a huge effort to engage the community," police Chief Chris Magnus said. "There's no single strategy that does the trick. It's about finding the right combination."

Much went right in 2010 for police. During a time when departments across the country were cut due to budget pressures, Richmond hired. The department reached full staffing, about 200 sworn officers, for the first time in nearly a decade.

New approaches also bore early fruit. A team of detectives now works closely with the state Department of Corrections to closely track parolees, and the department restored narcotics and gang intelligence teams erased by earlier budget cuts.

A new arrangement with Contra Costa Superior Court and nonprofit youth centers helps to enforce a new daytime curfew for minors, many of whom chronically cut school and wind up as crime suspects and victims. And the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office staffs a prosecutor specifically to handle low-level gun crimes in the city, to identify potential shooters before they act.

Richmond also added gunshot detection technology to the city grid, which helps police quickly track street violence, along with monitored video cameras at historically troubled corners.

But, above all, beat officers credit the drop in violence to the evolution of the geographic, patrol-based community policing plan that began in 2006.

See anything in that list about gun control measures? Pressing for more background checks? Stopping the gun show loophole? One-gun-a-month mandates?

No.

It's all about policing crime where it happens. On the streets. In the neighborhoods.

Gun violence? Sure, it still happens.

Is it because of gun show loopholes?

No.

Reducing available targets helps, because the lion's share of shootings in Richmond are impulsive, officials say. Conflicts that lead to shootings often stem from disagreements related to social pecking order, violations of personal respect, and pressure to defend friends from such violations.

Read the bolded part again.

That's why it happens. In cities plagued by gangs and gang violence that result in shootings.

This is how you do it, people.

You want to stop gun violence?

This is how you start.

Stun Gun Violence!!!

Over in San Francisco

Two women sitting in a parked car in San Francisco's Balboa Terrace neighborhood were attacked by men who shocked them with a stun gun, then fled with their purses, police said Thursday.

Stun guns are dangerous. I bet these guys just walked into a corner store and bought them.

Which shows you that anybody can get one. Without a background check!!

Especially with their pistol grips and shoulder-thing-that-goes-up, terrorists the world over will be rushing to get their hands on this.

Next thing you know, these things will be heading down to Mexico. Mexico, fer Pete's sake!

We need to do something about this now! Think of the children! Finding one in the closet then shocking each other. And their friends.

Even worse--another Columbine.

Or Virginia Tech.

If your teenager or young adult starts writing things like "I am Zeus" or "Ride the lightning!!1!1!" on their facebook page, you'll know the next step is buying a stun gun and committing a massacre.

The madness has to stop!

(Creation of the Campaign to Prevent Stun Gun Violence in 5...4...3...2...)

Thought For The Day: Gun Control Groups

Gun Control Groups are places where common sense goes to die.

VPC's Josh Sugarmann Hates You

Specifically, Josh Sugarmann hates anyone who believes in the right to self-defense.

Josh posts about the NRA's 2010 Holiday Catalog and notes the presence of weapons that

seems to involve a lot of paranoid stabbing, cutting, and lethal poking.

Josh wants to imply that having these weapons in a catalog means the NRA is paranoid and lethal and therefore in a similar class to others who are paranoid and lethal--criminals.

But in reality, Josh does not believe that you, Dear Reader, are entitled to protect yourself from assault.

Josh would prefer that you let yourself be assaulted.

He would prefer that you let your son be beaten.

He would prefer that you let your wife or daughter be raped.

Because having tools to protect yourself

involve a lot of paranoid stabbing, cutting, and lethal poking

and that's a no-no.

Isn't Josh nice?

Merry Christmas Folks

A very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Kick back, relax, and enjoy.

We'll be back to the raving in a couple of days.


(photo: Talis Source Blog/scottfeldstein)

The Goddard Campaign To Create More Victims

Looks like Colin and dad, Andrew, will add their voices to the anti-gun blogosphere in a new upcoming blog.

Or better: "Looks like Colin and dad, Andrew, will parrot Brady and other anti-gun talking points in a new upcoming blog."


(h/t: Sebastian)

Gun Show Loophole Misdirection

While paging through the Brady Bunch's site, I came across the following article: "Rebutting the Gun Lobby"* It's meant to rebut "the most common gun lobby claims" on the "gun show loophole."

There's one rebuttal that stood out for me and I want to share that one with you.

Here's the claim being rebutted:

There is no such thing as the “gun show loophole.” Every sale that requires a background check outside a gun show requires a background check inside a gun show.

The Brady Bunch then gives you the quick answer, some background, then a key anecdote to use.

Here's what stood out for me. The key anecdote.

They write:

You can use this story from the high profile Columbine shooting to show that criminals obtain guns at gun shows. The Columbine shooters exploited the gun show loophole to obtain three of the guns they used in their massacre. The Columbine shooters were not old enough to buy their shotguns and rifle from a licensed dealer because they were not yet 18. They recruited their friend Robyn Anderson, age 18, to buy the guns for them at the Tanner gun show in Colorado. The killers specifically looked for an unlicensed seller so there would be no paperwork or background check. Anderson stated in testimony to the Colorado legislature, “It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn’t have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check” (Congressional Record - Senate, 2000).

Based on this, clearly the "gun show loophole"--that private party gun sellers who aren't licensed to sell guns--allowed criminals to get guns. In this instance, the Columbine shooters got their guns from a private seller and went off to perform the massacre.

Back up a minute and look closer.

Harris and Klebold could not buy guns because they were under 18. They asked their friend, Robyn Anderson, to buy the guns for them because she was 18. She did.

Full stop.

This is called a straw purchase and violates federal law.

But the Brady Bunch glosses over this little tidbit and misdirects us with Anderson's sob story:

“It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn’t have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check”

This is a subtle blame on the private seller who didn't do a background check and makes us focus on the cause (non-background checking private seller) that led to the effect (Columbine massacre).

But the plain fact is this: Robyn Anderson violated federal law by buying the guns for Harris and Klebold.

*There's no direct link to the article. When you click the above link, scroll down to the 5th bullet point (pun intended) and click the arrow.

Anti-Gunners Want You To Be Raped

Tampa Florida, January 2010:

Eighteen minutes of terror recorded by a 911 dispatcher.

"Let me go home, let me go home.. please God just let me go home!" the victim pleaded.

A woman cries and begs for her life after Tampa Police Captain Hugh Miller said she was held against her will and sexually battered by Tommy Lee Sailor, 37, on New Year's Day.

A clip from a CourtTV program in which a woman is raped while on the phone with 911.

A Connecticut mother tries to appease her abductors and

may have believed her abductors would let her go, but they are accused of taking her home where she was sexually assaulted and killed. They also tied up and assaulted her husband

These women did not have to end up as statistics.

With the proper mindset, training, and practice, they could have defended themselves with a firearm.

But the anti-gunners don't want you to defend yourself with a firearm.

According to Sarah Brady:

"To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."
(Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993)

Her husband,Jim Brady, on handgun ownership:

"For target shooting, that’s okay....For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments."
("In Step With: James Brady," Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994, p. 18)

Read that second part again:

"For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments."

Yet in all three cases above, the police came after the attack.

So tell me--do you really think gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and the VPC are concerned with your personal safety?

ATF Creates Fake "Emergency"

The Washington Post recently revived the 90% Argument ("that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the U.S."). A New York Times editorial jumped on the bandwagon.

Now the ATF has called for "emergency regulations" requiring FFLs along the Mexican border to report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within a five consecutive day period.

Sebastian noted the ATF has no authority to do this.

So I call "bullshit."

Bullshit on overstepping authority.

(And further bullshit on rehashing that tired old 90% Argument. But we'll deal with that in an upcoming post...)

Brady Bunch Budget Shortfall?

According to an email from Paul "I'm Full of Bullshit" Helmke and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership, they have a budget gap.

As you know, we've had to fight on more fronts than ever....But all of this comes at a cost. If we can not close our budget shortfall, we will have to make significant changes to our game plan next year...We've already taken steps to reduce our expenses. To succeed, it's going to take the combined effort of each and every one of us. Please make a donation today.

Every single dollar is urgently needed right now. Whether your contribution is large or small, every little bit helps.

What's this?

How can the Brady Campaign be experiencing a budget shortfall?

Don't they continually tell us that the majority of Americans are on their side when it comes to "preventing gun violence?" If so, shouldn't their coffers be overflowing?

I mean, after all, the majority of Americans on their side must be a lot, right?

Remember when I wrote about the protest of Open Carry by members of the Northern California chapter of the Brady Campaign? How I was absolutely amazed at the staggering and overwhelming numbers they presented?

And by "overwhelming numbers" I mean 10 people?

Based simply on those numbers alone, I fail to see why the Brady Campaign has a budget shortfall.

Why is that, Friend Flicka Paul?

Gun Control: An Alternative Look

Here's another way of looking at the gun control issue.

Imagine, if you will, a grade school classroom with 30 kids and one teacher.

Now, let's say the teacher creates three rules for the classroom, rules the kids must follow, rules that keep the classroom orderly and conducive to learning.

The three rules are

1. No talking during lessons
2. Stay in your seats during lessons.
3. Respect your fellow classmates.

Now, suppose that despite those rules, ten out of the thirty kids repeatedly do not follow them and continually disrupt class. In addition, they push the other kids around.

Okay--now suppose that in order to punish the ten kids for not following the rules, the teacher decides to create more rules of conduct.

The ten kids still don't follow.

So the teacher creates even more rules.

In every instance, the twenty kids who actually follow the rules are finding themselves saddled with more and sometimes stricter rules.

They'll follow them, of course. They're good students.

But those ten kids repeatedly do not.

And the teacher creates even more rules.

Think about this for a moment.

As a solution, does it make sense?

Go ahead. Think about it.

No. It doesn't make sense.

Here's the thing: this is exactly what gun control is doing.

The ten kids (criminals) are breaking the three rules (established gun laws) so in response, the teacher (gun control advocates) create more rules to make sure the three rules are being followed.

Now let me ask you: if you thought the classroom example didn't work, what makes you think gun control efforts will?

Idiots on Parade

Here are two op-ed pieces from folks who've been brainwashed by anti-gun lies.

The first is from one John van Horn of Kansas City.* The second is from Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald.

Both use the two biggest anti-gun whoppers.

Let me show you.

GUN OWNERS ARE THE SAME AS CRIMINALS
John-Boy:

Thank you, Second Amendment advocates. Thank you NRA. Thank you gun show merchants who sell firearms without background checks. Thank you pawn shop owners.

Thank you for allowing the least stable among us access to guns. Thank you for arming gangs and for making so many citizens feel that their only safety lies in gun ownership.

Freddy:

Once again, innocents in communities like Liberty City suffered the murderous reality created by Second Amendment absolutists -- those who talk of the right to own military assault weapons as if these guns should be regarded no differently than handguns or hunting rifles.

It helps that gun theorists and their sycophant politicians reside well away from the vicinity of Victory Homes, the misnomer along Northwest 73rd Street, next to a warehouse strung with concertina wire, where a sleeping mother and a baby can become collateral damage in a gangbanger demonstration of American gun culture.

Notice how John-Boy implies that gun rights folks somehow arm gangs but misses the fact that a prohibited person cannot legally acquire a firearm.

Notice how Freddy equates "gun theorists" with "gangbangers." He spends the majority of his op-ed talking about gangbangers and drive-by gunmen--criminals who are legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

None of his examples are of legal gun-owners.

Seeing an anti-gunner pattern here?

NO GUNS NEEDED; THE POLICE WILL PROTECT US
Says John-Boy:

We do not live on the frontier. Police help is available to citizens with cell phones in a matter of minutes.

We've gone over the myth of police protection before.

Here's the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter (Warren v. District of Columbia, see page 4):

....official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection....This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Now let me show you the deadly part of John-Boy's lie:

Police help is available to citizens with cell phones in a matter of minutes.

According to the 2007 Criminal Victimization in the United States Statistical Tables, Table 107: for crimes of violence, 37.6% of the incidents showed police response time between 11 minutes and 1 hour.

Look at that time again. Between 11 minutes and 1 hour.

Consider: a violent attack on your person may take less than a minute.

And the police are where at that point?

Do you see why that lie is deadly?

Yes, Dear Readers. You are correct.

These two are idiots.


*(h/t: David Codrea)

Helmke Resorts to Scaremongering and Half-Truths: Part Two

Last time we looked at the way Paul used scare tactics in the opening of his November 19th Huffington Post entry.

Today, we're going to look at how Paul uses half-truths (and misdirection).

Here is Paul's central point:

Apparently the gun guys are upset that Traver did a TV interview where he helped demonstrate the lethality of an AK-47, while explaining, "Pull the trigger and you can mow down people." Then Traver added that, "the growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons" is a problem we should be concerned about.

[...]

...the NRA bosses are all tied up in knots because Traver didn't make it clear enough to the TV audience that a fully automatic weapon (like the one the reporter apparently blasted) can get a few rounds out more quickly than a semi-automatic and is not as readily available to the general public (although they would like it to be).

Half-truth and a bit of misleading. Yes, with an AK-47, if you pull the trigger you can mow down people.

But only if you have a true AK-47 assault rifle.

A true assault rifle is capable of selective-fire. That means there's a little knob you turn that lets you switch from semi-automatic fire (one pull of the trigger = one shot) and fully automatic fire (one pull of the trigger = many shots). Except for a few exceptions, a true assault rifle isn't readily available for sale to the general public.

Traver gives a misleading statement on that interview by making it seem like fully automatic AK-47s are available at every corner drug store.

From earlier in the entry:

Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home. (Wink. Wink.)

Since a fully automatic AK-47, and therefore a true assault rifle, is not readily available for sale to the general public, a civilian (or semi-automatic) version should logically be available. This (the semi-automatic version) is what most folks would have.

Again, Paul is trying to confused you with the semi-auto/full auto terminology. He wants you to think that the AK-47 your next door neighbor owns (the semi-automatic version) is the same as the fully automatic AK-47 a soldier (or, in Paul's view of the world, a gang mamber) would have.

Next up, Paul says

Semi-automatics are only a little less deadly than fully automatics. They can blast 106 rounds in less than two minutes. One of these weapons was used by Patrick Purdy in Stockton, California, helped him kill five children and wound 29 others.

The NRA bosses know full well that the semi-automatic military-style Uzi assault pistol used by James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others at the McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. And that the TEC-9 assault pistol used by the Columbine killers murdered 12 of their classmates and a teacher.

Yes, Virginia, if you believe in Santa Claus then you'll believe there is a significant difference worth debating between the killing efficiency of a fully automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic assault weapon.

First, the misdirection.

Notice that Paul uses the terms "semi-automatics" and "fully automatics" interchangeably when describing the weapons used by Purdy, Huberty, and the Columbine killers. He does this in that first paragraph above, when the word "they" immediately follows the term "fully automatics." This is similar to the VPC's ploy of playing on public confusion between the two terms:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

By using both terms to describe the "same" item, Paul hopes to further confuse readers and make them equate "semi-automatic" with "fully automatic."

Another misdirection: Back in that first paragraph up there (begins with "Semi-automatics are only...") the reader is meant to think Paul's about to compare the rate of fire between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. After all, he even provides a number: if the word "they" in the next sentence refers to "semi-automatics," then according to Paul, they can fire 106 rounds in less than two minutes.

But he fails to provide us with the comparable number of rounds that a fully automatic can fire. Instead, the reader is left to mistakenly assume that if semi-automatics are a little less deadly than fully automatics, and a semi-automatic can fire 106 rounds in less than two minutes, then "a little less deadly" means a fully automatic can fire, say, at least 110 rounds in less than two minutes.

After all, 106 rounds is "a little less" than 110 rounds.

Now some half-truths.

According to Paul

Semi-automatics are only a little less deadly than fully automatics. They can blast 106 rounds in less than two minutes.

and uses Patrick Purdy's gun as an example.

The "106 rounds in less than two minutes" is probably a reference to the reports that Purdy fired at least 100+ rounds in the three minute shooting that took place that day in 1989. Also according to those reports, Purdy used a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.

So: 106 rounds in less than two minutes?

I did an experiment. Given that a typical AK-47 carries 30 rounds in its magazine, I took a stopwatch and NERF gun that shoots foam darts and timed myself pulling the trigger 30 times (equal to shooting 30 rounds) as fast as I could. It came out to between 8 and 11 seconds. I then estimated at least 5 seconds to eject the spent magazine, pull a new one from some pocket or holder, insert it into the weapon, and be ready to fire again.

Doing the math, I show that according to my experiment, 120 rounds can be expended from a semi-automatic weapon in roughly 47 - 59 seconds, with 3 reloads.

Now, an AK-47 has a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute or 10 rounds per second. If it were fired at fully automatic using a 30-round magazine, it would take 3 seconds to expend a full magazine. Let's again say it takes 5 seconds to reload. Doing the math gives us 180 rounds expended in 59 seconds, with 5 reloads.

So which is deadlier?

Before we answer that, we need to define what "deadlier" means.

Are we talking about number of rounds fired? If so, then according to these numbers, fully automatic is deadlier than semi-automatic. 180 rounds vs. 120 rounds in under a minute.

Are we talking about number of people killed? If so, then the weapon Purdy used isn't very deadly if only 5 died. Huberty's Uzi assault pistol is far deadlier at 21 people killed.

Are we talking about the ammunition used? The AK-47 uses a 7.62mm bullet while the Uzi uses 9mm. The 7.62mm is a more powerful cartridge than the 9mm so the AK should be the deadlier of the two.

But Paul never elaborates on what he means by "a little less deadly."

So there you have it. Just a few examples of scare tactics, half-truths, and misdirection used by Paul and the Brady Campaign to try and make their point.

The Anti-Gun Agenda

Thirdpower succinctly* outlines the Gun Control Agenda.

As you can see, a big part of the Gun Control Agenda is to bring us into Happy Singing-Dancing Unicorn Land, where there is no crime, no war, everybody's happy, and we all sing, dance, poop rainbows, and pee sparkles.**


*Yes, I did just use an SAT word.

**Yes, I did just make a post out of my comment.

Bloggery Doings

As you can see, I've revamped the look of the blog just a bit. Figured it was time for a change.

I'll also be redoing the logo so the header will change soon, too.

Also updated the blogroll with some additional folks:

• An NC Gun Blog
• Girls <3 Guns
  
• Violent Indifference
• The Truth About Guns
• No Lawyers--Just Guns and Money

Hi guys! Nice to have you aboard.

And now, back to the raving...

"Common Gunsense" Isn't

I honestly tried to read with an open mind but after a week of seeing the same tired responses, I gave up.

The blog Common Gunsense claims to be about "thoughtful discussion about how to prevent gun injuries and death."

It's anything but a discussion.

Unless your definition of discussion involves one person giving their statement, backing it up nothing that remotely resembles facts (or if it does, it's very misleading), and when someone rebuts them, they stick fingers in their ears and sing out "Lalalalalala! I'm not listening to you! You're a poop head!"

Want an example?

Here's one...

japete (who runs Common Gunsense) writes this post. In it she says

I need to know why compromise is off the table for some. I need to know why that works. I need to know how that will lead to better public safety and preventing people from being senselessly shot to death.

In the comments, she comes out and asks

What are you willing to compromise?

So one person responds

Compromise #1:

1) On ALL gun sales/transfers. The Seller must perform a criminal background check on a buyer who doesn't possess one of the following:

- a valid permit to purchase handgun/"assault" weapon with matching government ID (passport, DL, State ID Card)

- a valid permit to carry a handgun with matching government ID

- a valid curio & relic federal firearm license with matching government ID (for C&R transactions only)

The criminal background check must be setup to be run via a secure Internet site, utilizing a persons name, address and SS#. It must give back a "Pass" or "Fail" within a "reasonable" period of time. It must be free to use.

IN exchange for this further restriction of our rights - we ask that there be recognized nationwide reciprocity of Concealed Handgun Permits/Licenses free from individual state interpretation. This would require a standardized curriculum with training, and all fees would be "cost only".

How's that for compromise?

To which japete replies

I am not going to negotiate gun laws on this blog.

Wait a minute. She claims "thoughtful discussion" but immediately backs off when discussion begins?

That's not discussion.

Then in that same response she gives us a telling statement:

I don't know enough to do so.

Full stop.

She doesn't know enough about gun laws to negotiate? Yet she writes in favor of passing said laws?

And there you have it, Folks.

Idiocy at work.

An Anti-Gun Lie and the Florida School Board Shooting

Anti-gunners are quick to say that we don't need guns for protection because that's what the police are for.

Watch this video of the Florida School Board shooting.

Then scoot along to about 1:42 of the video. You'll see the police entering the room, weapons drawn.

Now: where were the police when the gunman pulled out his weapon?

One more time:

Where were the police when the gunman pulled out his weapon?

If the anti-gunners are right and the police are supposed to protect us from folks like this shooter, where are they?

Watch the time on the video. At roughly 0:20, the gunman has painted the "V" symbol on the wall and has a pistol in hand. When the gunman finally drops to the floor after shooting at the school board members, we are at about 1:33.

Time elapsed: roughly 1:13

1 minute and 13 seconds of no police presence.

Okay, anti-gun folks. Explain exactly how the police were supposed to "protect" those school board members.

Saved by a Gun Free Zone...Not

Yesterday

A gunman opened fire at a Bay County, Fla., school board meeting Tuesday afternoon, taking aim at the school’s superintendent but injuring no one before fatally shooting himself.

A determined criminal will not be stopped the law, let alone a "Gun Free Zone."

The anti-gun folks make a big thing about Gun Free Zones. According to them, they are magical places where nothing bad will happen, where murderous gunmen will somehow be repelled if they get close, where unicorns and talking bunnies dance and play and sing.

It's a lie.

This is a fine example of how well it works.

Another example: Virginia Tech.

Call Governor Christie

From David Codrea's Examiner.com blog post:

CALL TO ACTION: On Wednesday, December 15 2010, please pick up your phone and call Governor Christie at 609-292-6000. Wish him a Merry Christmas and ask him to please Free Brian Aitken!!!

Get those phones ready.

Anti-Gunners Don't Care About People

The Brady Campaign. The VPC. the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. CeaseFire. Other like-minded groups.

They don't care about you.

Anti-gun groups would prefer that the homeowners in this news story be unarmed. The fact that those homeowners would've been hurt or killed doesn't seem to matter.

And that's the truth behind the anti-gunners.

Colin Goddard Is A Coward

Josh Horwitz wants to paint James D'Cruz as a potential school shooter based on the quotes and pictures on his Facebook page.

Okay.

Then I say Colin Goddard is a coward based on his own testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee.

Says Goddard

What started off as a typical day in a small town school in southwest Virginia, soon further expanded our definition of the worst mass-shooting in US history. Midway through my 9:00am French class, we began to hear muffled banging noises coming from somewhere outside of our classroom.

As soon as our teacher went to investigate the sounds, she slammed the door shut and told us to get under our desks and for someone to call 911. I took out my phone and, as I later found out, placed the only call to the police by someone in the building. The next 10-minute period was the longest 10-minute period of my entire life. It felt like hours.

....I had nowhere to escape and no time to react or even think. As I turned my head back, I told the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here, but I still didn't totally understand what that meant. The only decision that I was left with was to act as if I was already dead.

[...]

The force of the first bullet caused me to throw the phone from my hand and it landed next to the head of a girl named Emily. She picked it up and remained on the call with the police the entire time. Emily was ultimately able to give the dispatcher his location and help the SWAT team to get to us.

[...]

Each time he came back into our room I was shot again. The second and third time in both my hips and the fourth time through my right shoulder.

During Cho's 10 minute rampage, well before police arrived, Goddard was able to make a 911 call then stayed in place. Cho came and went from the room three times. No one did a thing. Not even Goddard.

Goddard even played dead.

A day after the shooting, while Colin was still in the hospital, he spoke to Lisa Ling for an Oprah Show special report. "I tried to act dead like I wasn't even moving," he told Lisa.

Go back to his testimony. He also says it there:

The only decision that I was left with was to act as if I was already dead.

His mother, Ann Goddard, says he was

"absolutely scared to death....He kept his wits about him, but he was scared to death."

He kept his wits but did nothing.

When Cho entered the room, Goddard says:

I had nowhere to escape and no time to react or even think. As I turned my head back, I told the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here

No time to react or think but he was able to tell the voice on the other end of the phone that he was here?

The shooting took 10 minutes. Before police got to the scene.

10 minutes.

10 minutes.

And nothing done.

Count off 10 minutes. Use a stopwatch. Use a timer. Now sit there and do nothing until the stopwatch or timer finishes.

Cho had that much time to wreck havoc.

No, you say? Goddard's not a coward? Not a coward because of the deadly nature of his situation? Not a coward because to have done something would've put his life in ever more danger?

Bullshit.

Wanna talk about acting against a threat despite the danger, despite being scared? How about the passengers of Flight 93?

From a phone call between Tom Burnett and his wife Deena, aboard United Flight 93 on 9/11:

Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I'm putting a plan together.

Deena: Who's helping you?

Tom: Different people. Several people. There's a group of us.

Writes Jeffrey Snyder in his essay "A Nation of Cowards":

Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens.

Am I saying D'Cruz is a hero?

No.

But to demonize him, especially when he has a Halloween photograph of himself dressed up like a Prohibition-era gangster carrying a gun?

That's freakin' low.

Somebody is desperate for a scapegoat.

Okay. Fine.

Two can play that game.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Remember our California Brady Friend, Karen Arntzen? She's the one who said:

"They say that they are law abiding citizens but there's no way of knowing that. There's no accountability for this group"

She's talking about open carry advocates and, by extension, gun owners.

So according to Karen, even if we say we are law-abiding, there's no way of knowing that for sure.

Implication: We (gun rights folks) say we are but really, we aren't.

Further implication: we (gun rights folks) are criminals while they (the anti-gunners) are respectable, moral folks.

Enter White Plains, NY Mayor Adam Bradley. Mayor Bradley is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. If we follow Karen's logic, Mayor Bradley is an anti-gun person and must also be an upstanding citizen.

Mayor Bradley, the Upstanding Citizen, was just found guilty of attempted assault on his wife.

um...Karen? You were saying...?

(h/t: Uncle)

More Buyback Follies

This one is in San Bernadino, CA, scheduled for December 18th.

Good luck with that. Tell us when it actually makes the 1,908 violent crimes you had in 2009 drop to zero.

Always Remember...

...never give a monkey a gun.

Thoughts On the Death of Lennon and the Rise of Gun Control

Thirty years ago yesterday (December 8, 1980), John Lennon was shot by Mark David Chapman.

The Brady Campaign's press release notes Lennon was

"One of a Million Victims of Gun Violence in Just 30 Years."

Our friend Paul also notes:

"While Lennon’s abilities as a musician and lyricist were rare, his status as a gun violence victim is not. Way too many people have been killed with guns in America."

and continues:

"But more needs to be done to make our society a safer place, including closing the gun show loophole and the terror gap, which make it easy for dangerous people to get lethal weapons"

That got me thinking.

According to the anti-gunners, the U.S. is rife with gun violence compared to other industrialized nations. If so, why is it that the bulk of the anti-gun movement has taken place over the last 40 years? Why not earlier?

Look at the dates.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed in the wake of the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) was founded in 1974, along with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH). (As we know, HCI later becomes the Brady Campaign in 2001; NCBH is renamed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in 1990).

Lennon is shot in 1980.

In 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. tries to assassinate Reagan.

Within the last 40 years.

Do we have anything earlier?

Sure.

The Sullivan Act of 1911, passed in New York. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

But if we also look back at history, we see assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents well before 1934.

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. Why didn't groups spring up and call for strict regulation of firearms then? How could they allow someone like Booth to get his hands on a gun, a mayhem-producing .44 caliber derringer no less?

And some 30 years earlier, a flintlock-wielding assassin tried to kill Andrew Jackson but failed. Why weren't folks up in arms about those deadly flintlock pistols?

And look at all those shootings in the Old West. Why weren't there gun control laws in place to prevent that bloodshed?

So tell me: why only in the last 40 years? If gun violence has been an ongoing epidemic for our country, wouldn't you think something would've been done back when it first began, back when an unemployed house painter named Richard Lawrence pulled a pair of pistols and fired on then-President Andrew Jackson?

SacBee Sees Some Sense

Yesterday's editorial at the Sacramento Bee on Amtrak's updated firearms policy gets it right.

For law-abiding travelers who want to transport their guns legally, the new rules are fair and reasonable, but let's be real here – they are no deterrent to determined criminals.

Exactly right. Determined criminals will still bring a gun onto the train and shoot people. Like the deadly "Gun Free Zone," laws will never deter a criminal bent on destruction.

Glad to see someone in the media is paying attention and acknowledging reality.

Helmke Resorts to Scaremongering and Half-Truths: Part One

We briefly mentioned this post in an earlier entry but focused on another aspect.

This time, we're going to examine the article itself. This will likely be a nice long post so we'll break it up into sections.

Good Ol' Paul resorts to scare tactics and half-truths in order to get his point across. That point, of course, is total civilian disarmament. In this section, we're going to look at the scare tactics employed.

Paul writes:

There the NRA goes again -- siding with the common gang member and drug dealer who wants to use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities.

Guilt by association. Right off the bat, Paul wants the reader to associate the NRA with criminals by saying they side with gang members and drug dealers.

Notice he uses the word "again." This suggests that the NRA does this all the time. That is, side with gang members and drug dealers.

The implication here is: the NRA should be lumped in the same definition as the criminal.

Paul follows this opening paragraph with this photograph


Notice: this photograph immediately follows the phrase "use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities."

The idea here is to give a visual to the term "semi-automatic weapon." As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

The visual is further reinforced with the caption identifying this object as a "military-style assault weapon."

Also in that caption is the scare tactic: "these guns are back" and "on our streets." Close proximity to the opening paragraph starts the reader thinking and associating this way: NRA = gang members = drug dealers = semi-automatic weapon = military-style assault rifle = on our streets.

A mental red flag goes up.

And Paul capitalizes on that red flag with the next paragraph:

Too bad about the bloody, injured, paralyzed, and door-knob-dead bodies. Too bad about the little children who can't play outdoors, or the innocent teens who can't walk their streets alone, for fear of being shot by stray bullets from gang-bangers wielding assault weapons. Too bad about the mamas and the papas who can't afford to live in neighborhoods that aren't flooded with illegal guns, like those the NRA bosses inhabit. Too bad about the schoolchildren, teachers, and workers who are victims of the mentally unstable who easily can get their rapid-fire killing machines from so-called private sellers at gun shows.

The intent in this paragraph is to evoke emotion. Tug at the heart strings. It's meant to work in the exact same way as those commercials about adopting a child in a third world country. They show you pictures of children with sad, unkempt faces living in deplorable poverty, flies and gnats swarming around them."How horrible!" you think.

Same thing here.

Blood and death caused by guns. Note the images. "bloody, injured, paralyzed, door-knob-dead bodies." "little children" and "innocent teens." "fear of being shot by stray bullets." "illegal guns" and "rapid-fire killing machines."

Also notice the associations within that paragraph: "gang-bangers" with "assault weapons." "illegal guns" with "NRA bosses." "rapid-fire killing machines" with "private sellers at gun shows." He wants you to connect illegal guns with the NRA, and "rapid-fire killing machines" with gun shows.

Evoke emotion.

But it's not meant to tug at the heartstrings.

No.

The intended emotion is fear.

Yes. Paul wants to scare you. He wants you deathly afraid.

Follow the flow of associations: NRA = gang members = drug dealers = semi-automatic weapon = military-style assault weapon = on the streets = blood and death.

In an effort to find a shortcut, the reader will simply begin with "NRA" and associate the last image: "blood and death."

In the next paragraph, Paul makes a further association:

Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home. (Wink. Wink.)

The "Thou shalt not" attempts to mimic the language of the Second Amendment.

Note that "law-abiding" is in quotes, the inference being it's a questionable or not necessarily true term.

He invokes the AK-47 which immediately brings to mind the pop culture image of gang-bangers toting said weapons. Such an image is meant to scare you.

Paul wants you to associate the "law abiding" citizen with the gang-banger (both want AK-47s) and the Second Amendment as the primary excuse for having such a weapon.

Three paragraphs in and already Paul has bombarded us with images of death associated with guns, gangs, and the NRA.

And we haven't even gotten to Paul's main point!

In our next post, we'll look at the half-truths Paul uses.

John Lott: Assault Weapons and the Truth

Over at National Review Online, John Lott outlines why Andrew Traver is a bad choice for the ATF and reminds readers the truth about "assault weapons."

Paul Helmke: Bigot

Here's a great example of the Gun Control Crowd's unabashed bigotry.

Like how Helmke equates gun owners with criminals? It's right there in the first sentence:

There the NRA goes again -- siding with the common gang member and drug dealer who wants to use a semi-automatic weapon to wreak havoc in our communities.

Followed immediately by a scary picture of an UZI.

You know the logic behind it, right?

Here goes:

Criminals use guns. If you have a gun, you must be a criminal.

Gun owners have guns. Therefore, they are criminals.

ZOMG!

Oh--except for cops and the military. They can have guns but they're not criminals because we said so.

Yeah.

I don't understand the logic either.

Gun Buyback Follies in Stockton, CA

A gun buyback is scheduled for Saturday December 4th.

Yet another "feel good" event for anti-gunners despite evidence showing they don't work.

From the report Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders, Guide No.23 (2003), by Anthony A. Braga, page 3 (scroll down to #17, near the bottom of the page)

Unfortunately, evaluations have shown that gun buyback programs have no observable effect on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They do not directly target guns that are highly likely to be used in violence, and the characteristics of the guns collected reveal little overlap between crime guns and buyback guns.

Yup.

Doesn't do a damn thing, likely wastes taxpayer monies, but sure feels good, doesn't it.

Logic Train Wreck

Over on Common Gunsense, japete offers her thoughts on why 18-year-olds should not be allowed to purchase guns.

She makes the comparison to denying access to alcohol:

In most states, 18 year olds are denied legal access to alcohol for good reasons. Alcohol causes enough problems for older adults. Why make it easy for younger adults to use and abuse alcohol and drugs? Some would like to change this age. I am not sure what I think about this one. Most realize that these young people go off to college where there are legal drinkers and it's hard to keep the underage drinkers from gaining access.

So the very idea of 18 year olds in high school legally carrying guns around in public and/or being able to legally purchase is absolutely insane....Let's combine the known risky tendencies of teen-agers with the idea of them also legally carrying guns in our restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and other places where young adults gather, and we have a recipe for trouble. As [a New York Times] editorial notes, young people already are responsible for a good number of illegal gun crimes and murders. Why make it even easier for potential shootings?

Sounds reasonable, right?

Come a little closer.

Look at that first paragraph. She says that in most states, 18-year-olds can't buy alcohol then admits

...these young people go off to college...and it's hard to keep the underage drinkers from gaining access.

Then in the next paragraph she says it's insane to think of 18-year-olds purchasing and legally carrying guns.

Wait wait wait wait.

It's hard to keep underage drinkers from getting access to alcohol when they go off to college but if we pass a law barring guns from them, then it won't be hard to prevent their access to guns?

Hear that crash?

That's the Logic Train derailing.

No Gun Deaths, Therefore No Anti-Gun Uproar

I'm surprised at all the Anti-Gunners.

So far, they haven't made a ruckus over the student who held his classmates hostage then turn the gun on himself.

I guess Paul Helmke and his fellow antis only get into a tizzy when many people die.

But y'see, this kid commited a crime by bringing a gun into a Gun Free Zone. A school. Broke the law.

According to the anti-gunners, they don't want this to happen. They don't want criminals getting their hands on guns and going into a school to kill young people.

But clearly since there were no deaths, it doesn't matter.

I have one word.

Hypocrites.

VPC on MI Licensee Suicide Rates: A Follow-up

Now, if the VPC really wanted to compare the suicide rates among handgun licensees, it would be per 100,000 handgun licensees.

Remember: keep the same units.

Per the data, we have 164,793 licensees in 2007. Of those, 29 committed suicide.

Which means there were 164,764 who did not commit suicide.

The suicide rate, after doing the math, comes to 17.59 per 100,000 (17.6 if we round up).

The non-suicide rate, after doing the math, comes to 99,982.4 per 100,000.

And there we have it.

Suicide rate for licensees: 17.6 per 100,000 licensees

Non-suicide rate for licensees: 99,982.4 per 100,000 licensees

But you and I know the VPC won't stand for numbers like that.

No.

Showing 17.6 licensee suicides per 100,000 versus 11.3 suicides per 100,000 looks better.

More shocking. More menacing.

And makes better news.

And that's what counts, right? Making news.

Not public safety. Not preventing or even stopping violence.

Nope.

Making news.

So once again: You're still trusting them because....?

VPC Misleads on MI Concealed Handgun Licensee Suicide Rates

Our friends over at the VPC make the claim:

Michigan concealed handgun license holders commit suicide at a rate higher than the general Michigan population

Here's their data which "proves" that claim:

According to information from the Michigan State Police, for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, 29 of Michigan’s 164,793 concealed handgun license holders took their own lives for a concealed handgun license holder suicide rate of 17.6 per 100,000 license holders.

[...]

In comparison, in 2007 Michigan’s suicide rate for the general population was 11.3 per 100,000.

Sounds reasonable, right? 17.6 is greater than 11.3, therefore it follows--

Wait one.

Go back to the data and look again.

Do you see it?

Let me show you.

The 11.3 is the rate per general population. The 17.6 is the rate per license holders.

See what the VPC is doing? They're trying to mislead you by comparing two different units. That's like saying 3 feet of wood is far better than a mere 1 kilogram of wood.

If we really want to compare the suicide rate, don't we need to use the same units? In this case, rate per 100,000 persons in the general population.

Let's do just that.

From the above information, we have 29 suicides by licensees in 2007. The 2007 population of Michigan was 10,050,847. Doing the math gives us a rate per 100,000 of 0.29 licensee suicides.

Let's further assume that the general suicide rate of 11.3 is for all suicides. Data here gives the total suicides in Michigan as 1,131 which corresponds to the above rate of 11.3 per 100,000. If that's the total, then we need to remove the 29 licensee suicides in order to find the number of non-licensee suicides.

Subtracting 29 from 1,131 gives us 1,102. Again, doing the math gives us a rate of 10.96 per 100,000.

So here we have the true numbers. In 2007, Michigan had a suicide rate of 0.29 handgun licensees per 100,000. Of the remaining general population that includes non-handgun licensees, Michigan had a suicide rate of 10.96 per 100,000.

Big difference.

And there you have it, folks.

The VPC uses misleading data in order to further their cause.

And you still trust them because....?

ETA: Follow-up post here.