Talk About Low as You Go

Via Gun Nuts Media we get some of the lowest of the low from a “respected news source.” In this case we have an editorial writer comparing those of us with handgun carry permits to sex offenders:

Say, for example, you want to find out whether there are any convicted child molesters living in your neighborhood. You have young children, and like any good parent, you look up the information on available Web sites. Your research uncovers several living in your neighborhood. If you want to know whether they have permits to carry a gun, you can get that information. This bill, however, would prohibit that information from being made known.

Let’s step back a minute. First of all if a person is in a sex offender registry they have most likely committed a felony meaning they won’t be in the carry permit holder database. Second the implications of comparing law abiding citizens with clean records to child molesters is sickening. Just think about that for a minute. They are implying that those of us who hold permits to carry handguns are in the same class as those who have molested a child. A child molester is one of the most hated people in the country, they don’t even have a good life expectancy in prison because the prisoners hate them.

Of course the news paper wasn’t satisfied with just doing that. Let’s throw in the possibility of racism:

It also will be nearly impossible to find out whether police or other members are denying permits to legitimate applicants, maybe because of race or names that might denote a Muslim background, for example.

Oh OK I guess having a database of permit holders is OK because it will help fight racism. That makes so much sense. Except it doesn’t. This pretty much states that if you support keeping the names of those with carry permits secret you’re racist. At the moment that’s the gold card for those who don’t agree with you, accuse them of racism.

Let’s look at what the actual problems with publishing these names are. First and foremost there are people out there who obtain a carry permit for protection against a known potential threat. Often time these permit holders want their address kept secret so the potential threat can’t find them. Likewise many permit holders carry concealed because they don’t want people knowing they have a gun. See it’s a lot easier to survive a self defense situation if you have the element of surprise. It takes time, however brief, to for the human brain to deal with surprising criteria and that time could save your life. On the other hand if a criminal were targeting you or your family they would likely check to see if you had a carry permit and adjust their tactics as necessary. I’ll not even get into the whole shit storm of marketing people using the database as a mailing list.

Finally the author states the following:

As for allowing journalists access to generalized data: That information is useless. About all that could be gleaned is how many permits were issued and in what city or county — maybe.

Obviously the author doesn’t understand the wonderful world of data mining. A surprising amount of information can be derived from a little amount of data. From a person’s address you can theorize, quite accurately, their wealth (If they life in a upper class neighborhood for instance), the potential of having a family (A larger home often implies family versus an apartment), the car they drive (Parked out front often), and the hours they keep (Through observing their house and watching the times they come and go). This is just the icing on the cake obviously.

But the author obviously has a disconnection from reality as he thinks carry permit holders are in the same class of concern as sex offenders.

The bottom line is the anti-gun crowd love this database because it discriminates against gun owners gives reason for people to not obtain a carry permit (Personal information being published). An open database of carry permit holders has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with social control.

Impossible Shooting in Japan

This is impossible. There was a shooting in Japan. How can this be? They have some of the strictest gun control laws on the books combined with a police state. It’s also like the anti-gunners are wrong or something. From the story:

At least two people have been killed and two others injured when a gunman opened fire at a bar in western Japan, officials say.

Well I guess we’re back to the real world again where gun control doesn’t prevent violence. Instead criminals will get firearms and those who are disarmed due to obedience of the law will simply find themselves as targets unable to defend themselves. Haven’t there been enough examples of gun control failures to show it doesn’t work yet? Oh and to make a point:

Police are investigating the gunman’s motive. Shootings are rare in Japan, where there are tough gun control laws.

Such attacks are often linked to gangsters known in Japan as yakuza.

Yes shootings are rare in the police state of Japan but those that do occur are linked to *gasp* criminals! I’m noticing a pattern here.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Says Uncle shows us the difference between peaceful pro-gun people and violent anti-gunners. The violent anti-gunner said the following:

In several of my comments, I made derogatory remarks directed at the trolls. I said some nasty stuff. Some colorful language was used. I stand by that language. I also stand by my offer to face them one on one and punch these idiots in their faces. That’s how I roll.

Meanwhile Uncle the peaceful pro-gun activist retorts with:

If he threatened me, I’d go to a local judge and get a restraining order taken out against him. That’s how I roll. Because I don’t have something to prove. To my wife.

Once again pro-gun people prove that we’re peaceful individuals who resort to violence only when absolutely necessary.

Beautifully Put Post About Felons and Guns

I have to give Robb Allen some serious props here. He wrote a great post about felons and gun ownership. Much like myself he opposes stripping a person of their second amendment rights just because their a felon. Not because he wants to see felons with guns but because felonies are a joke now, not limited to serious crimes.

As I’ve stated before I’m a fan of you do the crime you do the time. Once you’ve done the time that’s it, your punishment should be over. With that said if you’ve done a seriously horrible crime you should received an equally horrible punishment. In other words if you murdered several people in cold blood you shouldn’t be seeing the light of day again. On the other hand if you wrote a bad check over $500.00 you shouldn’t have your rights stripped from you.

If somebody is perceived as a danger to society to such an extent it is desire to bar that person from obtaining weapons, why is that person out of prison?

Those Progressives Sure Are a Violent Bunch

For all the claims of loving peace and hating violence those progressives (Not to be confused with liberals.) sure like their violence. Walls of the City shows us what one of these progressives had to say about carry permits:

You, however, have demonstrated considerable irresponsibility in your arguments and in your personal attacks on this blogger, who also happens to be my wife. Send me your home address and I’ll come to your house and punch your fucking face in. Unless you are a pussy who can’t fight without a gun in his hand.

Yes apparently this particular progressive seems to find guns a pussy’s weapon. But if you’re not a pussy he’s willing to come to your home and punch you in the face. My question is why is he only willing to come over to somebody’s home and punch the person in the face if that person doesn’t have a gun? Oh wait I remember now because violent attackers don’t like armed resistance. I want to thank the person who made that comment for reaffirming two things. Progressives are violent and why I own guns.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Apparently that’s also Bloomberg’s motto. His group Mayors Against Illegal Guns has ever so graciously “released” their Blueprint document that anybody following gun blogs has already read through. As Snowflakes in Hell states:

How nice of him. I guess since we already made it public, he can pretend like transparency was his plan all along.

Smooth one there Bloomy, take the problem of somebody obtaining that document and turn it into a an opportunity.

Too True

I found something I agree with strongly on View From the Porch:

You know what bugs me? Serious fighting pistols with high-dollar price tags that have obviously never been used for anything but holding down the carpet on the gun safe shelf. Colt Gunsites and Les Baer Thunder Ranch Specials that have obviously never been to Gunsite or Thunder Ranch; HK USP Tacticals with the “Hostile Environment Finish” that have never been exposed to an environment more hostile than the trip from the car trunk to the indoor range. With guns like these, “Not a scratch on it!” is something of which to be ashamed, not to brag on. I hereby resolve to call these “Minnie Pearl Guns” from now on.

It always amuses me when somebody spends big bucks on a defensive handgun. Although my reasons are slightly different than mentioned in the linked post.

First this opinion is based around concealed carry. If you want to use an expensive gun in competition that’s fine. But I find carrying an expensive gun to be a poor idea. My reasoning is several fold, but I have one main concern. God forbid you have to use your gun defensively you need to realize there is a very high chance the gun will be confiscated by the police for the investigation. Also realize there is a chance, a great one in some states and/or cities, that you will never see that gun again.

If you’re carrying a Glock or XD you’re out a little over $500.00. It sucks but it’s not the end of the world. If on the other hand you have a very nice tricked out 1911 you stand to lose a $1,000 or more investment. That doesn’t jive with me well. Of course somebody may decide to say I’m promoting the idea of carrying the cheapest gun possible, that isn’t true.

I’m advocating carrying a gun you know will go bang for a fair price. Reliability is key and there are many reliable guns for reasonable prices. Glocks, XDs, M&Ps, snubby revolvers, and the list goes on. They are very reliable and don’t cost a $1,000.

Anyways it’s just a side note I thought up when reading the linked post. When carrying a firearm you should consider the affect effects if you need to actually use your gun defensively.

Brady Bunch Still Begging

How can you tell a group is bleeding for cash? They beg for money more than PBS. Joe Huffman shows us 14 Brady Bunch Twitter messages begging for cash. As an added bonus he’s linked to two videos which I’m convinced are parodies of Brady supporters. Either way he’s rubbing his nose enough in the second video that I’m convinced he’s Dr. Rockzo the Rock and Roll Clown and he does cocaine! Seriously man a lot of cocaine.

Open Carry Debate Rises From the Grave

The open carry debate is something like a zombie. No matter how many times it gets put down it always managed to rise again. It reminds me of the caliber wars actually. Well Sharp as a Marble points to an article where a man was assaulted by a cop-wannabe because the wannabe saw the gun being carried openly and decided to attack instead of something that makes sense.

Either way the anti-open carry people are bringing this story up as a reason not to open carry. Likewise the other side of the spectrum brought up by Rob is this likely wouldn’t occur if more law-abiding people open carried. I think both sides are correct here.

Getting open carry accepted is a chicken or egg thing. Many people won’t open carry because it’s not acceptable by the general public. Likewise open carrying will never be acceptable by the general public until they see more of it.

Generally I conceal carry. Not because I dislike open carry, I actually have zero problem with it and think it’s a method to desensitize the public. But I like my element of surprise. But if you’re a security guard and you see a person openly carrying a gun walk upon your turf it would be best to assume innocence as that’s what this country’s legal system is based on (Unless of course your a suspected terrorist or accused of being a pedophile, then you’re guilty as sin no matter what).