Fight Fire with Fire

OK I like this, I like this a lot. Somebody has setup a site called Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors. This was bound to happen of course and the site is full of win. It lists the rap sheets of members in Mayors Against Illegal Guns who have committed crimes.

New Assault Knife

Holy shit! Check out this dangerous and terrible knife! Obviously it’s far sharper than any hunting knife needs to be. The only thing this knife is good for is kill people! People simply don’t need a knife this sharp. We need to ban it now!

See how stupid that sounds? Well it sounds equally dumb when that is said about firearms. Seriously though that blade in the video is sharp, I want one.

There Ought to be a Law

Another anti-gunner who seems to lack the basic ability to comprehend logic. This article is mostly a hit piece on how guns are used to kill people and although not outright said a plea to ban them. Of course he points out a few shootings that somehow would be avoided if guns were illegal. Of course other laws were already broken in these shootings so I fail to understand how making more laws would have prevented them. Let’s take a look shall we?

13 are killed and 30 wounded at Ft. Hood, Texas, when an Army psychiatrist goes on a rampage.

Carrying a firearm on a military base is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

Three police officers in Pittsburgh are gunned down by a man who was upset about losing his job and convinced that the Obama administration was about to ban guns.

Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

13 are killed at an immigrant community center in Binghamton when a Vietnamese immigrant goes on a shooting spree.

Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

A former student opens fire at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, killing five students and wounding 18 more.

Carrying a firearm in the state of Illinois is illegal. Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

A rifleman in Omaha starts shooting at a mall, killing eight and then killing himself.

Discharging a firearm within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

A student at Virginia Tech shoots 32 people dead before taking his own life.

Carrying a firearm on Virginia Tech campus is illegal. Homicide is illegal.

So if we append another law, “owning firearms is illegal” to these lists all of these criminals acts wouldn’t have happened? That’s your argument? No wonder we’re winning! Oh and as a parting piece:

The odd, ironic thing is that I have never once heard of a crazed “liberal” forcefully taking the guns away from anyone. Never even once. Instead, irresponsible, dangerous people who should not have guns do have guns and they keep right on using them to kill other people.

Yeah a forceful gun confiscation in the United States has never happened… oh wait. Sorry I seem to have deflated your argument, super sorry about that.

Gun Safety from Henigan

It’s a lot like sex education from the Pope.

Snowflakes in Hell dissects the ramblings of a madman. As usual Sebastian does an excellent job of ripping apart the malarkey being spewed by Henigan. Now ignorance is just plain funny sometimes and sad at other times. This article is a severe case of the latter:

But human beings are prone to mistakes – they can be clumsy, or distracted, or rushed, for example – and guns are sufficiently complicated mechanisms that even the slightest mistake can result in tragedy.

This is not true of other widely available products used as weapons. As the late columnist and humorist Molly Ivins once observed, “People are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.” In fact, the great paradox of gun design is that guns are complicated enough to invite accidents by adults, yet simple enough to be fired by a child.

Could the Brady Bunch please provide me the number of people killed every year while cleaning their guns? Even somebody with as much bias at the Brady Bunch, whom will probably include suicides in their statistics, will have a hard time coming up with significant numbers.

But it does go to who the average intelligence of an anti-gunner when they consider a firearm a complex device. I think they’d shit themselves if they ever actually looked inside of their computers.

Violence by Proxy

So the basis for this post is a story in the Sun. For those of you who are unaware the Sun is kind of the UK’s version of the National Inquirer. The story itself is so loaded and one sided that it opens with this:

PRETTY teenage sisters have turned themselves into angels of death – shooting dead DOZENS of wild animals then smiling for sick photos with the bodies.

Hey at least they aren’t trying to hide behind being “balanced.” I have no problem with bias so long as you don’t try to hide it. But I’m sure you’ve already seen this story and honestly this post isn’t about this story. This post is about violence through proxy.

There are a lot of people who are anti-hunting. They protest the fact that people take firearms into the woods and shoot wild animals. Most of these people claim such acts are barbaric and outside of civilized life. Of course at the lunch you can find these same people eating a burger or ham sandwich (if you’re a vegan or vegetarian you’re exempt from my calling of hypocrisy). Whenever I’m around one of these people I make sure I point such hypocrisy out. Usually they go on a rant about how animals raised on farms are killed in human ways without any sickening blood lust hunters have. Truth be told I’ve seen factory farm conditions which is where most meat used in restaurants originates from and I can tell you hunters are orders of magnitude far more humane than those large farms (you want animals raised on a farm and slaughtered humanely check out your local farmers, they’ll not only have better meat but for cheaper than the grocery store).

In reality these people just don’t like the idea of violence… when done in a personal manner. These are the same people they say you should just give a mugger what they want or flee from your domicile when an invader breaks in. In both cases they state you should call the police and let them deal with the problem. But what does calling the police amount to? Well ultimately you’re asking a large organization to send a nameless person to do violence on your behalf. If there is an invader in your home and you call the police there is a likely chance of a violent encounter occurring when the police arrive if the thug hasn’t already fled.

Buying your meat is the same thing. You are asking somebody else to kill and slaughter an animal for you so you can avoid getting your hands dirty. Hunters on the other hand are willing to take responsibility for their own meal gathering and person the necessary violence themselves. Honestly I believe they creates far more respect for the animals being consumed because a hunter knows the difficulties involved in a hunt.

The bottom line is these type of people are usually ones who proclaim themselves to be pacifists. Of course pacifists can only exist so long as there are other people available to use violence on their behalf. Police officers and military personnel are generally the people who fill such roles. Police and military personnel don’t carry guns because it’s a deterrent to crime, they carry them because they may need to use violence to defend their lives. Even in the UK police usually have some form of weapon be it a baton, Tazer, or pepper spray.

The main point here is simple, if you are anti-hunting but eat mean you’re a hypocrite. If you are anti-self-defense but call the police upon a thug entering your home you’re a hypocrite. Violence is violence regardless of who is doing it. By using violence by proxy you are showing an unwillingness to take responsibility for your own well being and a willingness to put other peoples’ lives in harms way to defend your own. I’d go so far to say you’re selfish and a total bastard by proclaiming your life is worth more than another’s since you are willing to throw them into harms way.

Violence exists, it can’t be avoided. You either are willing to realize that fact and live with it or unwilling to realize that fact and pretend it’s not true.

Have I Got a Deal for You

I just found a great deal through Snowflakes in Hell and thought I’d share. There is a little sandwich shop that will give you two sandwiches (because I’m not calling them hoagies), a bag of chips, and a soda for the price of a firearm! With a sweet deal like that how could you pass it up? Apparently everybody has though:

Feeling compelled to do something, Pagliarella offered two hoagies, a soda and chips for each firearm brought to the store last week.

“I was hoping we would get one [gun], save one life and have one less gun on the street,” Pagliarella said.

But they received none.

Gee I can’t imagine why.

But I Thought if You Cooperated with a Criminal You’d be Safe

Remember the anti-gunner rhetoric that you’re safer cooperating with a criminal, giving them what they want, and not resisting them? Those of us in the pro-self-defense community bring up the fact that cooperating with a person who has already openly stated they are willing to harm you is a bad idea because you have no guarantee that the criminal will tell the truth.

Here is a story about a man who cooperated with a mugger and it cost him his life:

Dropped off at Penn Station after a weekend trip to New York to visit his sister, 23-year-old Stephen Pitcairn was talking to his mother on his iPhone at about 11 p.m. and walking north in the 2600 block of St. Paul St. when a man and woman demanded money.

Police say he turned over his wallet, then took a knife to the chest.

A resident was in his home ironing when he saw three people who appeared to be fighting, then heard a scream. He ran outside, saw Pitcairn lying on his stomach in the gutter and called 911.

Sadly the knife wound proved to be fatal for Pitcairn. This should show that criminals are not always going to just take what they want and leave. If you’re ever in a self-defense situation you need to have a plan to fight back. That’s why those of us who carry guns, well, carry guns. It’s our plan to fight back and save the lives our our loved ones and our selves. Whether it be pepper spray, a gun, a collapsible baton, or a Tazer, you should have some means of fighting back should a criminal decide to threaten your well-being.

Logic Hard

Yet another fine Letter to the Editor brought to you by the Red Star:

Guns
Car wash slaying shows how tiffs can turn lethal

Anthony Hartman, a 22-year-old Eagle Scout, is dead from a bullet allegedly fired by Jonas Grice, a 27-year-old described by his parents as a “good kid” who is “not one to go out and bully or pick on anybody.” There was apparently a small altercation at a car wash, and before other customers even realized anything had happened, a young man was dead on the floor.

This is an excellent example of why I want fewer guns in my community, as any minor tiff can become deadly when someone has easy access to a gun.

GERI L. ARMSTRONG, MINNEAPOLIS

First of all I must bring up this fact. Somebody who is 27 is not a “good kid” because you cease being a kid after you turn 18 in this country.

The author of this letter, whom is an idiot, says this situation is a reason for stronger gun control laws. On the surface this sounds logic until you stop to realize how little facts are given. The author describes the situation as a minor altercation but doesn’t even mention what the altercation was over.

But the idea of minor altercations turning in shootings was tossed out the window the second right to carry laws were passed. Now there are more guns on the streets than ever with people being able to legally carry firearms on their person. What has happened? Well violent crime has continue it’s downward trend. No I’m not saying right to carry laws are the reason for the downward trend in violent crime; I am saying an increase in the number of available guns doesn’t increase the violent crime rate.

Here in Minnesota for example we have tens of thousands of people who hold carry permits. The violent crime has been on a downward spiral which seems impossible if a higher availability of firearms causes minor altercations to escalate into shootings.

The problem is violent people are violent.

I Doubt this was Caused by Availability of Guns

We all know the anti-gunners like to claim the high availability of guns in the United States is the reason for our crime rate. They claim nations with stronger gun control laws are safer. Personally I think violence has more to do with social strife than laws and Mexico is a good example. Another violence incident occurred in Mexico. This time 17 people attending a birthday party were gunned down in the country dead south of us.

Whenever a spree shooting occurs here the anti-gunners bitch and moan about how we need stricter gun control laws and had such laws been on the books the spree shooting wouldn’t have happened. The bottom line is Mexico has some pretty strict gun control laws and they experience enough violence every day for several industrial countries. The problem is they are a failing state with a government more corrupt than Chicago’s politicians.

Which brings up to the fact most of the violent cities in the United States have a combination of strong gun control laws and social strife. Minneapolis for instance doesn’t have that horrible of a crime rate until you get into the northern territories where the slums are. Much of Chicago’s violence is in South Chicago. New York has the Bronx which is pretty well known for being a shit hole.

Violent people will be violent. Criminals will be criminals. If there is a law preventing a criminal from getting a gun they will ignore said law and get the gun. Those of us in the pro-rights community keep bringing this up and presenting our evidence yet the anti-gunners keep putting their fingers in their ears and screaming “LA LA LA” at the top of their lungs.