Chronicling the depravities of the State.
There’s less of it in Washington D.C. now according to this article:
The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind today as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
I though the anti-gunners said that more blood would be flowing in the streets, not less.
So I just checked the Brady Bunch score card for Minnesota. We score 15 out of 100. No it’s not great but certainly better than many. My goal is 0 out of 100 for this great state. Personally I like to call their scorecard system the liberty score system. If you score it like golf where lower is better you can estimate how much liberty your state grants you as related to your right to keep and bear arms.
I won’t link to those dip shits directly but here the link for you to copy and paste:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MN/
Why no direct link? Because it can increase their ranking on some search engines. Yes I’m that spiteful.
It seems that Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy center is on the war path again. And as Days of our Trailers points out his organization, Violence Promotion Policy Center, has no real argument so it’s moving to good old fashion character assassination:
The SAF head is a convicted felon — he was caught cheating on his taxes — who at one time lost the ability to possess guns. He later regained the ability to own guns through the now-defunct federal “relief from disability” program, a multi-million dollar program that re-armed convicted, often violent, felons, at taxpayer expense.
Let me see if I follow this logic. First Alan Gottlieb became a convicted felon, at tax payer expense, for fucking up his taxes. At a later date he was able to get his right to keep and bear arms restored which make sense since his felony has nothing to do with violent behavior. And we’re supposed to be enraged about this? This to me sounds like the “relief from disability” program actually worked correct that time.
So what Sugarman is saying is he doesn’t want to bar only violence criminals from bearing arms but all felons regardless of context. That’s a great idea, in a police state.
Sorry Josh would you like to try again?
It looks like Dennis Henigan, a favorite punching bag for Truth About Guns, has written another article complaining that his little Brady Campaign is getting beaten up by the big back bully gun enthusiast. From Mr. Hennigan’s piece:
In case you missed it, last Saturday was “Starbucks Appreciation Day.” No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The “appreciation” was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go – even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.
Reason number one why businesses should support us gun owners, we’ll support you back. That’s right because Starbucks was good enough to recognize our rights in their establishments we threw an appreciation day and spent money at Starbucks. You treat us well and we’ll treat you well. Did the anti-gunners throw an appreciation day for California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee and Tea after they issued their no girls guns allowed policy? Maybe you guys should try supporting those who share you views instead of ridiculing those who do not. Next up:
For a glimpse into its future as the corporate best friend of the gun-toters, Starbucks should consider the experience of a California restaurant chain, Buckhorn Grill. On February 6, a Buckhorn restaurant in Walnut Creek, California, was visited by about 100 men carrying their highly-visible guns. A recent New York Times editorial said this must have “looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-‘m-up.” Shortly thereafter, Buckhorn’s management made clear that the restaurant had always had a “no weapons” policy and apologized for the “misunderstanding” that had led to the “open carry” event. How many gun carriers need to show up at Starbucks for the company to realize what a nightmare it is creating for its customers and employees?
Wait 100 paying customers is a nightmare? Really? Although I don’t own my own business I will say if I did I’d be ecstatic to have 100 people show up at my business to spend money on my goods and services. Heck I’d not only be happy but I’d treat them extremely well so they would return. And I love this paragraph:
Over 27,000 Americans so far have signed the “no guns” petition circulated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CREDO Action calling on Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores. Please join them by going to www.bradycampaign.org. Tell Starbucks that, in your America, parents ought to be able to take their families into coffee shops without facing the intimidation and danger of guns.
27,000 signatures? That’s it? Really? Let’s do some math here. There are roughly 4,000,000 members of the NRA in this country. So the number of signatures they obtained is less than 1% (.675% to be exact) of the number of members of the NRA. Why is this important? It’s not really it’s just another method of showing the sheer scope of pro-gun people vs. anti-gun people and why businesses are better off catering to use than them.
Of course the important question lies in the title of the article which is called, “Starbucks Sticks To Its Guns. Why?”
Days of our Trailers points out the bloody obvious to Mr. Hennigan:
4+ million NRA members
>100K Brady Campaign supporters.
Do the math.
Apparently Mr. Hennigan has as much trouble with math as he does with basic logic.
You have to hand it to the Violence Policy Center they certainly know how to whine for attention. Of course nobody is going to give it to them for reasons Snowflakes in Hell points out.
Violence Pouting Center released another “study” that amounts to them using Google to do searches for terms like “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” (As if those are the same things). These searches were done in an attempt to show the use of “assault weapons” against law enforcement has dramatically increased in the last two years. The sources they use are news and media reports whom we know aren’t the best at identifying guns.
I admit that most of my research for Truth About Guns is done via Google. But I also make an attempt (A very big attempt) to use credible sources such as data provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. These knuckleheads over at the Violence Policy Center can’t even do that.
I’m sure most of you know about the fiasco occurring at Colorado State University. The campus is trying to ban lawful carrying of concealed firearms by their student body. Well I found a rather interesting article about this. Why is it interesting? Because the article was written in such a way to appear neutral but most certainly is not. Let’s start here:
It is a debate that gets snarled in the conflicting logic of gun ownership rights and the simple notion that bullets and blackboards don’t mix.
Personally I don’t find disarming a populace simple logic. And of course:
Whenever a change in the rules is discussed, national groups rush in with their agendas. On Friday, the Colorado board of governors received a petition from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), a group that says young scholars stand a better chance of surviving the kind of rampage that occurred in Virginia if – as it were – they pack a pistol in their pencil case.
I’m unaware of anybody who carries that doesn’t use a holster. I certainly don’t know anybody who carries a gun in a pencil case. But we’re not done:
On the other side of the argument is Gun Free Kids, an organisation that began a “Keep Guns off Campus” campaign two years ago in response to the Virginia slaughter. It deploys research from law enforcement groups that suggests that there is no correlation between gun-toting citizens and lowered rates of violence.
I’m going to try and find their research. But since most colleges ban students and faculty from carrying on campus and all the major shootings have occurred on disarmed campuses it goes without saying that there is no correlation between armed citizens and lower rates of violence. It’s almost like the cowards who perform mass shootings seek out disarmed populations to enact their rage against. If only there was at least one state that allowed students to carry and didn’t have any occurrences of mass shootings. Oh wait:
“It really came down to two general issues, number one: best practices, just looking at what other universities are doing, and very, very few outside of the state of Utah allow concealed weapons on campus,” he said recently. “The second is risk management, and it really comes down to this university is responsible for managing risk on this campus of the students.”
That’s right Utah. In Utah you can carry on a state campus. Likewise Utah has had no mass shootings on a college campus since the enacting of their carry laws. No this is not proof, nor evidence, nor even a correlation. But it’s on par with what Gun Free Kids (How many kids are in college anyways? Most people there are 18 or older.) is presenting. Finally this is out of order in the article but alas I want to make a statement about it:
The group also says that there are few places where guns should be less welcome than on campuses. “With binge-drinking, drug use and the pressures that college students are under, we just think introducing guns into that environment, it’s the wrong thing to do,” said campaign director Andy Pelosi.
What person who has a concealed carry license is going to binge drink while carrying? Whom of those people are going to abuse drugs and risk losing their license? What college student “under pressure” is going to use a legally carried gun to do something nasty?
The bottom line is conceal carry license holders are some of the most law abiding citizens out there. Anyways consider this post a mini Truth About Guns episode without all the citations and work.
Today is February 22nd which means you can now legally carry in national parks so long as you obey the carry laws of the park’s host state.
According to the gun control advocates this is the day that violence in national parks will sky rocket, blood will rain from the sky to fill the streets, everybody who enters a national park will be shot, and bears will become extinct as gun toting maniacs poach to their hearts’ content.
For those of us in the real world this is the day where nothing changes except those of us who carry don’t become criminals the second we talk into a national park. My prediction is nothing will change except for the fact some people who would have been mauled to death by a random wild animal will not survive.
In these hard economic times you have to do everything you can to keep your business going. Every dollar you can get counts. Well unless you ask the Brady Campaign who according to the every knowledgeable Snowflakes in Hell has a petition going to convince Starbucks to ban guns on their premises. From the Brady site (Which I won’t link to directly):
Dear Friend,
I ain’t your damned friend…
Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.
Businesses can legally prohibit guns from being carried in their establishments – and so far, Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns.
But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores, despite protests from loyal customers.
Starbucks is being smart, they like money and therefore they want to keep us gun owners happy. I do have to laugh at the fact the Brady Bunch can only list two other businesses that ban carry in their businesses, and one of them I’ve never heard of.
I think I might send off a nice letter to Starbucks informing them of the fact I appreciate their respect for my rights. I may not like their coffee or their prices but I like the fact that they are OK with me being able to defend myself in their store. Good on them and I hope they keep refusing.
Two days ago I posted some stuff about a violent anti-gunner. Well I’ve learned some new things courtesy of Gun Nuts Media. First the violent coward was Rob Russell who ran for a seat in the House of Representatives. He lost, for reasons obvious to those who read what he stated.
Well the guys at Gun Nuts Media also found his blog. But it’s gone now; deleted by the author. I’m guessing it was due to people posting on his blog informing him that it’s not a good idea to make threats of violence against individuals, even if it’s on the Internet. I’m glad to see Mr. Russell listened to that advice and shut down his blog before he made any further threats that could land him in legal water.
I also want to mention that anybody who has be threatened by Mr. Russell should contact the authorities. After all you don’t want to wait for him to show up at your home and “punch your fucking face in.”
Update 2010-01-13 16:33: Walls of the City has screen captures and links to Google caches of the offending material. The post also helpfully lists the laws violated by Mr. Russell. The fact that the Internet is forever is proven once again. Reasoned discourse at its finest.
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.