Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Wisconsin School Hostage Situation

If you haven’t heard there was a hostage situation in a Wisconsin school. Some punk kid came in packing two firearms and held his class hostage. Thankfully nobody was killed and the kid turned one of his firearms onto himself when the police arrive.

I’m glad to report the situation ended with nobody of consequence being injured or killed (a punk who takes a classroom hostage is not a person of consequence in my book). What’s interesting is how the situation is being reported. This was a hostage situation yes some news sites are still calling it a school shooting.

I think this story exemplifies the fact that crazy is crazy and makes a case yet again for allowing teachers to be armed in the classroom. This situation ended as well as could be hoped but most of the time we don’t hear such good news. Crazy people are dangerous and this story once again demonstrates the fact that people in our schools are helpless when one of these crazies come into the “gun free-zone” with firearms and an intent to cause harm. This crazy ended up holding 23 helpless people hostage with no real threat of retaliation should he decide to start killing those hostages (yes the police will eventually retaliate but if the crazy is planning on killing himself anyways it matters not). The best way to end a hostage situation is to prevent it from happening in the first place and the best way to do that is having a populace that can defend itself against the crazies.

Something Doesn’t Quite Add Up Here

Via MNGunTalk I came across a story that really has me scratching my head. The story is titled The story of two guns that killed police officers. Right there I knew this story was going to be bad as no mention of the wielders of the firearms were mentioned. Of course it gets better… much better. First the hyperbole:

The compact stainless-steel .45-caliber pistol was forged in a factory in Brazil in the summer of 2006 – 4,700 miles and two years away from a fateful encounter on a narrow North Philadelphia street near Temple University.

The author is setting up the article to be about the gun right from the get go.

From there, the $250 firearm began a 680-day odyssey through at least four states, four owners and two crime scenes before ending up in the hands of a 27-year-old parolee who used it to kill police officer Patrick McDonald.

Oh the gunman is finally mentioned after two paragraphs of setting up the gun as the focus of the story.

As part of an investigation of the deaths of 511 police officers killed by firearms since 2000, The Washington Post took an in-depth look at the circuitous paths taken by two guns. One is the Taurus. The other is a .380-caliber FEG semiautomatic pistol used in the slaying of an Indiana state trooper.

They were going to follow the lives of the gunmen but found that story to be too dull. Everybody expects the gunmen to be lowlife criminals whereas you never can guess the story behind a rabid killing machine such as a firearm! The author also decided it would be a spot of fun to target one of the gun shops:

The two guns were initially sold by federally licensed firearms dealers, the Taurus at the South Carolina pawnshop, the .380 at a high-volume gun store outside Chicago. At least three guns sold at the Chicago area store, Chuck’s Gun Shop, turned up in fatal shootings of police, the most of any store in The Post’s review.

Because if I sell you something and you use it in a crime it would be best to imply it was somehow my fault for selling you the tool. This is very important because your moral fiber is instantly known to me when you walk into my store. Now we get into the meat of the problem:

The .380’s sale involved a “straw purchaser,” a person who buys a gun on behalf of someone else and falsely claims to be the intended owner. The Taurus’s sale looked like a straw purchase, with the man who first bought the gun quickly selling it to a felon for a $150 profit.

Straw purchases are illegal. What the author just stated here were the two guns the followed were legally purchased and then illegal sold to ineligible owners.

In one case, a 19-year-old felon acquires a handgun casually, as payment for a bet on a game of basketball, tucks it into his pants and later uses it to kill an Indiana trooper. In the other, a fugitive from a Philadelphia halfway house tries to escape from a pursuing officer and pulls the gun as they fight on the street. Both stories illustrate how firearms dramatically increase the danger in already tense situations, creating irrevocable outcomes from panicky decisions.

Really? I thought both stories demonstrated that violent criminals are dangerous and thus any situation involving them will be volatile. Violent people are violent regardless of the tool they have at hand.

Mack lied on the required federal paperwork, answering no to a question about whether he used illegal drugs. In fact, Mack, who worked as a laborer for a masonry business, later testified that he had smoked marijuana every day since he was 13. But he had no criminal record, and the required background check did not prevent him from buying a gun.

Oh my god! A person with no criminal history was able to purchase a firearm? HOLY FUCK IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD! We need to allow the government to take away the rights of people who haven’t been convicted in a court of law NOW! Seriously what a fucking tool the author must be.

On Sept. 9, 2007, the Taurus figured in a nonfatal shootout at a Sunoco gas station between two men in southwest Philadelphia. Both were injured and went to a hospital. Police responding to reports of gunfire found spent cartridges from .45-caliber and .22-caliber pistols, but no guns. The .45-caliber cartridges were later linked to the Taurus.

Just as a side note I want it known that if I’m ever attacked by a criminal with a gun the .45 caliber casings will most likely be from my gun. Glock 30SF for the win!

Giddings had been released from prison 36 days earlier after serving eight years of a 12-year sentence for aggravated assault. A judge had ordered him to report to a halfway house, but Giddings soon absconded in violation of his parole. When several police officers, acting on a tip that Giddings was at a house in the area, tried to arrest him, he fought with them and escaped. Now, he was wanted for aggravated assault on the officers as well as the parole violation.

So a criminal with a violent past attacked an officer? Why the fuck was he out of prison four years early is my primary question here. Oh that’s right we have to make room in the prisons for all the non-violent offenders our government seems to want put away.

Giddings then stood over the officer and pumped more bullets into him. He hopped back on the bicycle, but before he could get away, two officers arrived in response to McDonald’s call for assistance. At least one exchanged gunfire with Giddings, killing him with shots to the head and chest, according to the police report. One of the officers was shot in the hip. The other was not injured.

I like how the author emphasizes the gun when the criminal uses it but emphasizes the officers when the police use them. Also I’d like to note that the police used those evil bad horrible guns to stop the violent criminal. Wait I’m sure the author will tell us that since the police are better than you and me trained extensively in the use of firearms they should be the only ones to have them. Now to the next story about the evils of firearms:

Jeter later said in an interview with The Post that he got the .380 from a friend, whom he refused to identify. The man owed him $350 from a bet over a game of pickup basketball. Jeter had bumped into him at Hook Fish & Chicken, a fast-food restaurant in Chicago, about nine blocks from where Vaughn said he sold the pistol.

Obviously this Jeter fellow is an upstanding citizen and the gun turned him into an evil man.

“I know it’s not legal to have guns in Chicago,” Jeter said. “But who doesn’t have a gun? That’s Chicago.”

Wait… so criminals are willing to ignore the law? Basically Jeter just made the best case against gun control you could ever make, he ignored the laws and had a gun anyways. When you ban guns only criminals will have guns is the correct phrase here.

He tucked the gun into the front pocket of his jeans and tossed his fast-food bag into a white 1993 Chevrolet Caprice that had been stolen six days earlier from a Sears parking lot in southwest Chicago. The thief passed the car on to Jeter, who used a screwdriver to start it.

Yup an upstanding citizen that the gun turned into an evil man. He certainly wasn’t hanging around criminals or anything previous to owning that evil gun.

Jeter took off to meet a 16-year-old girl in Gary, Ind.

Wait a minute…

19-year-old Darryl Jeter.

Huh. There’s something fishy about that but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

“I ask myself every day, ‘Why?’ ” said Jeter, now 26. “What was I thinking? . . . He didn’t deserve to lose his life.

“I was presented with a weapon I shouldn’t have had. I should have went home.”

See if this poor lawful individuals with absolutely no criminal history wouldn’t have been presented with that evil vile firearm he’d have never done anything wrong!

Seriously this story is so poorly written and bias I can’t even begin to tell you where to being.

Trying to Ban Spelling Mistakes

If guns kill people then pencils cause spelling mistakes. Apparently a North Brookfield teach decided to try and ban spelling mistakes because she sent out a memo to every sixth-grade student alerting them that they would no longer be allowed to bring pencils to school. What? Well he reasoning is classic dumbassery:

The memo said students would no longer be allowed to bring writing implements to school. It said pencils would be provided for students in class and any students caught with pencils or pens after Nov. 15 would face disciplinary action for having materials ‘to build weapons.’

Of course the administration of the school is saying nobody authorized the teacher to release this memo but frankly it’s still sickeningly funny. Zero tolerance ladies and gentlemen means we must all wear Velcro shoes because shoe laces can be used to strangle people. On second thought shoes can be used to bludgeon people so I guess all students must go bear foot from here on out.

A Case for Resisting Your Assailant

Those of us advocating armed citizenry hear a common argument for those advocating a disarmed citizenry, if you just give the criminal what they want they won’t harm you. It’s an ignorant belief though because that’s not always the case. Take for example this incident:

Police say the two Iowa store clerks — one a mother of 11 — did exactly what Michael Richard Swanson demanded, his shotgun pointed at their faces.

But the 17-year-old St. Louis Park boy allegedly shot them anyway, plunging two north-central Iowa towns into shock and grief. It was unclear why Swanson, who has a history of assault and theft, would drive south and in the span of an hour allegedly become a cold-blooded killer.

About 9:05 p.m., Swanson put on a mask and entered the Crossroads convenience store in Algona, demanding cash and cigarettes. Clerk Vicky Bowman-Hall, 47, did what he said, but he shot her. The mother of 11 died at the Algona hospital.

Police say that about 10 p.m., Swanson entered the Kum and Go station in Humboldt, robbed it and shot Sheila Myers, 61. Myers was dead at the scene.

Even though the two clerks submitted to their attacker and gave into his demands he killed them. The idea of simply giving a criminal what they want and they’ll go away ignores the fact that crazy people are crazy. When you’re facing an armed attacker the situation is already volatile. You know one thing about your attacker, they’ve threatened your life.

In my book the second somebody threatens my life I no longer trust anything they say. Why should I believe somebody stating they are willing to kill me won’t do so if I simply give into their demands? What guarantee do I have that they’ll stick to their word? None.

Being armed gives you an option, a means of defending yourself. Obviously a gun isn’t a magical talisman that will ensure you walk away alive but it gives you far better chances than being completely helpless.

Hey President Calderon I Have a Solution

It seems the President of Mexico is once again trying to tell us what to do:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has told the BBC the US should do more to reduce the demand for drugs that is fuelling violence in Mexico.

You want us to do something to reduce the demand for drugs? Sure thing we’ll legalize it all and end the war on drugs. Much like Portugal we should see a drop in drug related violence once they’re legitimized. Of course that’s not acceptable:

Mr Calderon and his counterparts from Colombia and Costa Rica, Juan Manuel Santos and Laura Chinchilla, said legalisation of cannabis in California would send a contradictory message.

God damn it! We offer a solution and you spit on it. What the fuck are we supposed to do?

“It is confusing for our people to see that while we have lost lives and we invest vast resources in the drug war, in the consumer countries they promote proposals like the Californian referendum to legalise the production, the sale and the consumption of marijuana,” said Mr Santos.

I understand that potential freedom and liberty may be confusing to you as presidential equivalent of Columbia but trust me it works. You’d be surprised how popular the idea of liberty really is.

He reiterated his long-standing view that the problem of organised crime would remain as long as the US remained the biggest consumer of drugs in the world.

If it’s no longer criminals to grow, possess, and use the stuff then organized crime will no longer profit from it. Once organized crime no longer profits from it their power base will be knocked out and thus become much less of a problem. A similar thing happened when we ended prohibition in this country many decades ago. But no story about the troubles of Mexico would be complete without the mention of the Mexican gun canard:

Obama administration officials have acknowledged that the US shares responsibility for the drug violence, on account of the demand for illegal drugs and its inability to stop weapons flowing south.

I will give the BBC one thing though, they usually do a good job of covering both sides of a story:

However, US gun rights groups question whether the US is the source for the vast majority of the illegal guns turning up in Mexico.

The majority of guns confiscated by Mexico and submitted to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for tracing do originate in the US.

However, a large number of seized weapons are not sent for tracing.

There is your reason so many guns submitted for tracing are found to originate in the US, not many guns are being submitted. For instance there really is no point is submitting a fully automatic AK-47 to the US for tracing being finding such weapons for a reasonable price (as any such weapon made after 1968 1986 is illegal) is practically impossible.

EDIT 2010-10-27 21:05: Had the wrong date posted. It’s corrected now thanks to Jeff.

Trying to be Relevant

How cute the Brady Campaign is trying to be relevant again. This time Paul Helmke is saying the way to get women votes is to support gun control. Strangely enough I don’t know many women who support stronger gun control and I know more who are bleeding-heart liberals than not. Of course the Brady Campaign have no bias on the matter because they get their data from polls:

Similarly, a poll done of voters nationwide for the Brady Campaign by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Inc. in the November 2008 election found that 83 percent of female voters supported “the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns” (something that 68 percent of male voters supported). Eighty six percent of women supported criminal background checks on all gun sales (79 percent of men supported this).

Women voters’ desires for tighter restrictions don’t stop there. Seventy three percent of women (and 63 percent of men) supported registration and licensing of gun owners. Seventy percent of women (60 percent of men) supported restrictions on military-style assault weapons). Sixty seven percent of women (63 percent of men) supported a waiting period of five days for handgun sales. And, 60 percent of women (46 percent of men) supported limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.

Yes I removed the link from the quote because it goes to the Brady Bunch’s website and I’m not giving them any traffic. If you want to think you can copy and paste it:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1085

Let me see if I can find their bias here. Oh there it is, “Similarly, a poll done of voters nationwide for the Brady Campaign…” If you pay a polling company to do a poll they will get you the results you want. That’s just good business. They also play the fear card:

With more than 100,000 getting shot or killed by guns each year in this country, voters — particularly women voters — are looking for candidates who will work to reduce gun violence. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that near-total gun bans are off the table, now is the time for candidates to propose and support common sense restrictions that make it harder for dangerous people to guns. This would be good policy — and good politics — particularly for those seeking to widen the “gender gap.”

Once again the link was removed because of my strict rule of not giving those fuckwits referrals. Here’s the link you can copy and past into your browser:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence

You’ll notice it’s under the subcategory /facts which is an oxymoron coming from gun control advocates as anybody who’s read this site for any length of time knows. Notice how the quote says, “With more than 100,000 getting shot or killed by guns each year…” That’s important because they are including accidents and suicides in their statistics.

I think politicians will find the quickest way to get voted out is by supporting gun control. I’m sure most of the politicians still remember what happened the last time they supported the Brady Campaign’s agenda.

Responsibility

The “unbiased” Washington Post has a survey posted on their website with the question being “Are gun stores responsible for crime?” Not only is this the question but some people actually are voting yes on it.

I’m completely flabbergasted as the idea that gun stores should be responsible for the actions of their customers. Although is cliche I’m going to use the classic car analogy. Should a car dealership be held responsible if one of their customers kills a kid while driving intoxicated? Almost nobody I know would answer yes to this but somehow some people feel the rules should be different for gun stores. What logic or sense is there in the idea of holding gun stores responsible?

In order for a gun store to sell a gun they must be a federally licensed dealer. Having a federal firearms license (FFL) is the de facto definition of being a gun store. When you hold an FFL there are certain restrictions and regulations put into place. First you must have every customer fill out an ATF Form 4473 which records the firearms sold, the firearm’s serial numbers, and the person information of the purchaser.

After this form is completed the FFL holder must call the FBI’s National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) hot line and provide the information on the 4473 to the person on the other side of the line. With this information in hand the NICS is used to run a background check on the purchaser. There are three results possible from this; go, no-go, or delay. This means the FBI ultimately grants permission on all sales performed in gun shops.

Shouldn’t this be considered enough on behalf of the FFL holder? If you want to blame somebody else for the actions of a criminals why not blame the FBI? They ultimately approved the sale.

What I would like to hear is justification from somebody who thinks gun stores should be held accountable for the actions of their customers. This justification must also include reasoning why gun stores are special and should be treated differently than other stores (unless of course you believe all stores should be held accountable for what their customers do with items that have been purchased at the establishment).

Guns are the only things I’m aware of where people say sellers should be held accountable for the actions of purchasers. Every other thing on the planet is assumed to be an item of no conscious and the user is ultimately held responsible for any misuse. Hypocrisy pisses me off almost more than anything else.

A Case for Carry in National Parks

OK this title is misleading. I really should have titled it a case of why you should use our new law to carry a firearm in national parks. A man hiking in Olympic National Park was killed by a mountain goat recently:

Mr Boardman tried to shoo the animal away but it instead attacked him. After goring the hiker the goat stood over him, and had to be pelted with rocks by a ranger before finally moving away.

We have to remember humans are frail being compare to most wild animals; in a fair fight we rarely win. When hiking in the mountains, trudging through the jungle, or walking through the woods we are at the mercy of the animals who live there. As a race our dominating feature has never been our brute strength but our ability to construct and utilize tools. Although anti-gunners will try to convince you otherwise, a gun is a tool and it would have been the best object to have in this situation.

If you are able to legally carry a gun while out and about you should. Even in a nice neighborhood where you are 100% there is never ever crime (we in the gun community call this ignorance) a gun will give you means to protect yourself against four legged predators as much as two legged ones. You never know when a violence dog will make it’s way into your fine gated community.

And for those critics who claim there is absolutely no reason to carry a gun in national parks I urge you to read this linked article and tell me that after.

CNBC Does a Hit Piece of Remington

Yet another piece of news I missed during my time in Texas has bubbled up to my attention. The Firearm Blog reports that CNBC did a hit piece of the Remington Model 700 series.

CNBC’s report claims the Remington Model 700 can fire without the trigger being pulled and that flaw has resulted in injuries and deaths. Of course as The Firearm Blog points out pre-1982 Model 700s were known to have that particular flaw (although if there were injuries and deaths involved I don’t know, just make it a point to not walk in front of any firearm and you can avoid that potential cause of injury/death). As the CNBC report mentions this flaw going back 60 years I believe they are digging up an old story, claiming it’s new, and ignoring the fact that the problem was fixed in 1982.

I also have to agree with a point made on The Firearm Blog. In this day and age there isn’t a single issue a firearm can have that won’t go across the entire Internet. Just look at the Ruger LCP when it came out, every issue on the planet was brought up on almost every firearm message board on the planet. The Remington Model 700 is incredibly popular with hunters, military, and police. If there was a major flaw in the gun it would be well known.

Of course CNBC isn’t exactly known for using facts and they’ve always had a major anti-gun slant as far back as I can remember. Hopefully this hit piece doesn’t cause too much trouble for Remington.

Cars vs. Firearms

One common thing use pro-gun people like to state is far more people are killed each year in automobile accidents than firearms. The idea behind this is simple, since anti-gunners claim we need to control guns because they kill so many people then we must also strictly control automobiles. I’m doing some research into automobile fatalities (not in any way related to firearms) and decided since I have the data at hand I might as well do a comparison.

Behold the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration trend data (NHTSA) on fatal automobile accidents. Now behold the 2008 (chosen because 2008 is the latest data on the NHTSA website) Unified Crime Report expanded homicide information. Specifically I’m looking at the FBI data on weapons used in homicides.

Since the FBI data only goes from 2004 to 2008 that’s what we’ll stick with.

In 2004 9,385 people were murdered with firearms while 38,444 were killed in automobile accidents. 2005 showed a similar trend with 10,158 people being murdered with firearms and 39,252 people killed in automobile accidents. 2006 continues this trend with 10,225 people killed with a firearm and 38,648 killed in automobile accidents. Guess what happened in 2007? Same thing, 10,129 killed with firearms and 37,435 killed in automobile accidents. Finally we have 2008 where the trend continued as 9,484 people were murdered with firearms and 34,172 were killed in automobile accidents.

In the United States it seems the number of people killed in automobile accidents is a little under four times the number murdered by firearms. If anti-gunners are actually concerned about peoples’ safety they would be lobbying for stricter car control laws instead of gun control laws. Anyways that’s just an interesting observation I made.