Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Remember it’s Citizen’s Guns that Cause Crime

I was browsing the BBC and noticed an interesting article in the UK section. It’s actually a movie about a man who illegally made guns for gangs. I just don’t understand this though since guns are all but illegal in the UK this man shouldn’t have been doing this, after all it’s against the law. Also remember that the guns of citizens were confiscated because that was the supposed cause of crime. Once you take everybody’s guns the problem of gun crime is solved after all, oh wait this guy proved that wrong.

More Proof Mayors Against Illegal Guns Isn’t

One nice thing about the fight against Mayor Bloomberg’s posse is they keep handing us ammunition (don’t mind the pun) to use against them. Even though the group says they are against illegal guns they really mean they are against gun ownership in general. Case in point Bloomberg spoke about against the bill that would allow you to bring your gun on Amtrak trains so long as you follow a process very similar to how you do it on airplanes. And of course he provides this great hypocritical quote:

Bloomberg says he’s not trying to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists,” he said, according to the Post.

No Bloomy this has nothing to do with terrorism. See he fails to realize the fact that this isn’t allowing people to just bring their guns on board but to do it in a manner similar to how airports do it. In other words in checked luggage separate from passengers. But here is the real kicker if you were allowed to bring your gun on board in carry on luggage if some terrorist scumbags tried something you could defend yourself and the rest of the people on the train by using your gun to stop the bad guys. Of course this also has NOTHING to do with illegal guns and EVERYTHING to do with legally owned guns. Senator Roger Wicker explains what this bill is really about:

“Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason,” Wicker said in a statement. “Particularly if they choose to travel on America’s federally subsidized rail line.”

Exactly, if I’m traveling on a system that is receiving tax money from the federal government they no longer have a right to deny my constitutional rights while using their service. See Amtrak isn’t a private entity they are a government subsidized entity and that in my opinion changes the rules completely.

Oh well this is yet another article you can show to any mayor who is a member of Bloomberg’s posse as an example that the group isn’t fighting what it’s name suggests.

North Dakota Remains Logical Impossibility

Says Uncle shows that North Dakota remains an complete paradox unable to exist in the real world. See according to the FBI statistics North Dakota had a total of three homicides in 2008. A gun wasn’t used in any of those homicides meaning there were zero gun related murders in North Dakota.

Seems odd considering North Dakota is rated 44 our of 50 in the Brady Bunch’s gun control list (in this case the higher the number the less gun control laws a state has). Being guns are supposed to cause crime and according to released FBI data on the number of NICS checks performed in 2009 [PDF Link] there were 309,269 firearm purchases made. To put that further in perspective North Dakota has a population of 641,481 which at the very least there may be almost 1 gun for every 2 people in the state. With that many guns and such a low Brady gun control rating the number of homicides performed with guns in that state should be far in excess of zero.

The New York Times Proves Once Again They Hate Gun Owners

We all know and hate the New York Times. What other paper can you find that constantly berates gun owners as some kind of social sum that should be eliminated? But here is a shocker presented by Snowflakes in Hell, the New York Times is actually being more anti-gun than the Brady Campaign itself. Seriously wow.

See the senate just vote in favor of a bill that will allow those of us traveling with guns to travel on Amtrak. Of course we have to follow the same policies as we do when traveling on airplanes with firearms. But according to the New York Times that’s crazy and is showing preferential treatment to gun owners:

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Yeah I’ll refer you back to Snowflakes in Hell on this quote. But I never really though that having to check a gun on an airplane was a privilege. In fact I’ve always seen it as a nuisance. Oh and for shits and giggles:

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Considering the federal government already does pay to keep Amtrak afloat I think Amtrak should be required to allow us to exercise our second amendment rights while riding aboard. After all we shouldn’t have our federal government funding infractions against this country’s own constitution. Just a thought.

But Gun Control was Supposed to Make Us Safer

The anti-gun crowd is always telling us how much safer we will be with stricter gun laws. Well Days of our Trailers looked into the matter and found out it’s not true.

Get this the violent crime rate in this country has dropped the second year in a row. Illinois on the other hand experienced an increase in their murder rate. But the real icing on the cake is if you take Chicago’s statistics out of the equation Illinois’s murder rate would have dropped.

That’s right thanks to Chicago alone the entire state of Illinois shows an increase in its murder rate. That shouldn’t be possible since Chicago has very strict gun control laws. What do the anti-gunners have to say about that?

Bloomberg’s Posse is a Little Screwed

So the NRA has a fact sheet on Bloomberg’s posse calling themselves the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In this fact sheet is a list of mayors who have quit that is pretty long. Under that is a list of people who are not actually mayors of the localities as the group advertises. I count 28 names under that section which is quite a few incorrectly added names to their member role sheet.

This list is very complete and even has a section for mayors in the group who were convicted of crimes. I must say if Bloomberg wants to use his deceptively named group to attack the NRA he better start an offensive quickly. The NRA is curb stomping them with facts, which we know anti-gunners have a hard time with. Then again I think Bloomberg’s biggest failure here was the name he selected for his group. Although it did help initial membership by claiming it was against illegal guns as the groups true purpose is exposed many mayors are leaving. Don’t deceive your base membership, they won’t like it.

The NRA certainly is doing a good job with the fact sheet alone and pointing out the futility of Bloomberg’s posse and their crusade against guns.

Shocking Story of the Day Gun Buybacks Don’t Stop Violence

I know the title of the article is already making you shit your pants in confused hysteria. Bear with me because this news comes from the child hating NRA but it looks legitimate. Studies have found out that gun buyback programs don’t actually stop violence.

Of course we in the gun community already figured this out because of one fact that crops up with this guy buyback programs:

“It’s highly unlikely that a person who would use guns for violence would turn them in,” said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminology professor who studies gun control.

Wait a minute you mean criminals not only will break the law but won’t turn in their tools when asked and given a cheap gift certificate? Truly shocking. Of course the local Sheriff chimed in:

Sheriff’s spokesman Dave Bristow concedes that would-be criminals are unlikely to surrender their guns. But he said the program might collect a gun that otherwise would one day be used in a crime.

“We’re trying to do something here that’s proactive,” he said. “Whether or not it works, how can you tell?”

So even he admits criminals probably won’t turn in guns, just law abiding citizens. And of course they are the ones we need to disarm after all because they may defend themselves. Of course he leaves a cop out in saying we can’t tell if it will work or not. But being Chicago has annual gun buybacks and one of the highest number of homicides in the country I think we can say pretty easily it doesn’t work. His further logic astounds me:

At a buyback event in May, the sheriff’s office collected 77 guns. Bristow said most of the guns were turned in by senior citizens. “Who’s to say that someone wouldn’t commit a burglary and steal that gun and then use it in a crime?” he said.

OK so you want people to turn in their guns because a criminal may steal them and use the stolen merchandise to commit a crime? In that case you should hold a car buyback program because some criminal may steal somebody’s car and use it as a getaway vehicle during the committing of a crime. If you have a burglary problem in your city maybe you should either work to stop that or let citizens take care of burglars themselves via their guns. Of course non-functional guns aren’t a threat but they get turned in:

A 2001 report on youth violence by the U.S. Surgeon General’s office says, “There is some evidence that most of the guns turned in are not functional and that most persons turning in guns have other guns at home.”

So really you aren’t getting functioning guns off of the street. After all why would somebody turn in a valuable gun for a pidley $50 to $100? Be we know gun buybacks aren’t about stopping violence at all but political imagery. Apparently we’re not the only ones:

Kleck said officials continue to hold buybacks because it allows them to look like they are reducing gun-related crime without angering people who support gun rights. “It’s a politically cost-free way of seeming to do something about the violence,” he said.

Yup it’s a method to show you’re doing something without actually doing anything. See hiring more police and having more patrols costs money. Giving out $50 to $100 per firearm costs relatively nothing in comparison. So what is the smart thing to do? Spend money on a solution or play security theatre? Well according to Manatee County in Florida the former.

Bloomberg Being Hysterically Stupid Again

Mayor Bloomberg is at his anti-gun rhetoric again. Snowflakes in Hell takes a look at Bloomberg’s accusation that carrying a gun while intoxicated is equally as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. From the blog:

Is it though? In 2006, 13,470 people were killed in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents. If you factor in other drugs, that number increases by about 7600 to 21,047. In 2006, there were a total of about 642 accidental deaths from guns. Even if you include intentional deaths from guns, that number only rises to the same level as the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities. That’s without even controlling for alcohol or other impairing substances being a factor. Clearly this is not as large a public safety issue.

Now I’m not advocating carrying a gun while drinking, in fact I’m against that exact act. But to compare drinking and driving which kills equally as many people as the total number of homicides with firearms each year to something that kills so few relatively is hysterics at best. This claim is being made in Mayor Bloomberg’s push to enact three new gun laws. The first of these is:

Carrying a licensed gun with a blood alcohol content above 0.08 percent — the legal limit for driving — would be punishable by a year in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

I guess this would make some semblance of sense if people beyond the select elite few could actually carry guns in the state of New York. Remember New York state is a may issue state and New York city is unwilling to issue permits to almost anybody besides the politically well connected. Hence this really is a non-issue in New York city at the moment.

Possession of any ammunition that can piece cops’ bulletproof vests would be a felony carrying a minimum sentence of one year.

Let’s look at the law regarding the manufacturing of armor piercing ammunition shall we:

(a) It shall be unlawful –
…
(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing
ammunition, unless –
(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the
United States, any department or agency of the United States,
any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of
exportation; or
(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for
the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been
authorized by the Attorney General;

So really possession of armor piercing ammunition is also a non-issue since manufacturing it for civilians is a no-no. That means the armor piercing ammunition that is currently out there is the only armor piercing ammunition that will every be available in this country. Purchasing from a limited supply of something rare is exceedingly expensive, hence it’s self controlled. This law is bullshit being presented to build up fear among the populace that people are using armor piercing ammunition to kill police officers.

Knowingly putting a gun into the hands of a child would rise to a three-and-a-half-year minimum sentence.

Does this include a parent taking their child hunting or to the range while the child is under adult supervision? That’s a pretty big deal. Might want to mention an exception for that if it exists.

Why Would You Need a Gun

Well if you’re living in Alaska the answer may be huge fucking bears. Via The Firearm Blog I found a good article from Alaska. Greg Bush took his dog for a walk one day. That day a bear whom appeared to be starving to death charged Mr. Bush and his dog. Well Mr. Bush had his Ruger Redhawk in .454 Casull and put the poor beast out of it’s misery and saving his dog and his own life.

Be it two legged predators or four legged you never know when you’ll be attacked. This is why I’m a proponent of always carrying a gun with you. Must like wearing a seat belt you don’t carry a gun only when you expect to have trouble you carry it so if there should be trouble you’ll have a fighting chance to walk away with your life.

It also shows you should bring the right tool for the job. Although here in Minnesota my .45 ACP is enough for almost any threat it’s not going to stop a brown bear unless I’m lucky. If you live in an area, like Alaska, with very large bears you want to bring something with a ton of power like a .454 Casull. You must know your threat before you can effectively defend against it.