Fresh Statistical Numbers from Britain

It looks like we have some new violent crime numbers for Oceania…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8153392.stm

They are claiming killings are at a 20 year low and gun crime along with other violent crimes are down…

But overall crime is down by 5% and violent crime has fallen by 6%, and gun crime has seen a 17% fall.

Of course since guns are illegal in Oceania shouldn’t gun crime be at 0% of all crimes? I mean the magical gun ban barrier stops all guns from coming into the country. Oh wait there are more statistics…

The number of attempted murders is also down 7%, but attempted murders with knives is up 11%.

Oh Hell now people using knives in murder attempts are up. Oceania better get on banning all knives quickly.

Other violent offences were up, however, including a 5% increase in the number of women raped to 12,165.

You know it’s much harder to rape a woman when she has a gun. I’m just saying.

Police recorded 284,000 domestic burglaries – the first increase in six years.

And criminals are more likely to break into your domicile if they know that not only do you not have any means of self defense but defending yourself against the intruder can nail you a prison sentence.

The British Crime Survey suggests the risk of being a victim of crime has risen from 22% to 23%.

Once again the risk of being victimized greatly increases when you are unable to defend yourself against an attacker. The strong prey on the weak. There is no likely way I’m going to be able to defend myself against a man with a gun unless I to have a gun. God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal is the right saying for this.

But BBC Home Affairs correspondent Andy Tighe said the survey showed overall crime and robbery appeared to be stable.

Wow if that’s not lying through numbers I don’t know what is. I’m sure they defined a certain percentage as being stable such as 5%. Now to me any increase in crime (for the likelihood of being a victim in a crime as they state) is not stable but an increase. Likewise if there were a drop it wouldn’t be stable but a decrease, which is what you want.

And now for the money quote provided by Mr. Chris Grayling…

It looks like the government is trying to cover up the scale of the problem we face with knife crime, little wonder given its policies have failed to get to grips with the challenge. Massaging the figures on knife crime twice in two years is just an insult to the families of those who have been tragically murdered in knife attacks and who are campaigning for real action to get knives off our streets.

I guess it’s time for Oceania to raise a magical knife ban barrier. Once that’s up and all knives, like all guns, are out of the country they can work on all blunt interments. Of course it’s going to be hard to cook without knives but who cares it’s for the protection of yourself and others.

So that’s Where the Mexican Guns are Coming From

FBI agent John Shipley is being charged with illegally selling guns to Mexico…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/us/10brfs-AGENTARRESTE_BRF.html

Funny that. So how exactly will making stricter gun control laws prevent federal agents, whom the law barely seems to apply, from selling guns to other countries?

Economics 101: Why Mexico isn’t Buying American Guns

I found a great post over on The Firearms Blog showing why the Mexican drug cartels aren’t buying their guns from America…

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/442059/100c35fa92/1641502434/35c8c21797/

It comes down to simple economics. Why would a drug cartel spend anywhere from $850.00 to $1,100.00 for a semi-automatic AR-15 when they could spent less than $100.00 on a fully automatic AK-47? Furthermore other countries are more than willing to sell the guns to Mexico whereas extra work must be done to get them from America.

Source: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/14/which-gun-prices-what-they-are-surley-mexican-criminals-are-looking-elsehwere/

Britain’s Violent Crime Rate Higher Than U.S.’s

Found via Say Uncle…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

So Britain’s violent crime rate is worse than the United State’s violent crime rate. That’s hilarious considering Britain has the magical gun prevention barrier that prevents violent crimes by making gun owner ship all but illegal. At least that’s what Britain said when they did their great gun grab.

This just can’t be.

Source: http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/07/02/nanny-state-not-helping/

Great Post Showing the Similarities Between Flat Earthers and Anti-Gunners

Rob Allen posted an excellent little spiel showing how gun control advocates are a lot like people who still claim the Earth is flat…

http://blog.robballen.com/2009/07/01/p3558-flat-earthers-and-the-gun-control-movement.post

From the post…

To this day, there are still people who cling to the belief that the Earth isn’t a sphere. No matter how much evidence you provide them, the Earth is Flat / Hollow / an Inverted Torus etc. They even have a non-profit organization. It’s called the Brady Campaign.

You see, all the factual evidence in the world won’t stop those who are anti-gun from continuing to believe that violence can be lowered if only everyone would just give up their guns. They keep making new laws that have no effect, so they make more laws. When the simple statistics and logic are brought up showing that increased gun control does little to curb crime and that criminals still continue to flaunt the law, they go an pull more and more ‘data’ and try to confuse the issue with statistical noise and outliers.

The U.K.’s Magical Gun Protection Barrier Failed Again

This shouldn’t be possible in Oceania but apparently the magical gun protection barrier that stops all gun crime in the country has failed again…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8127532.stm

Apparently somebody fired up to three shots into a household in Northern Ireland. Of course as you know guns are all but totally illegal in Oceania so this shouldn’t be possible. I mean guns are illegal how could somebody break the law? At least the couple who lived there were unable to defend themselves. I mean if the shooter would have entered the house and the couple living there were armed they might have shot the intruder!

Thankfully Big Brother has made self defense illegal so good hard working criminals can go about the daily business without fear of being shot by a law abiding citizen.

The Species of the Anti-Gunner

OK I spend a lot of time bitching out the anti-gunners. I do this because I don’t understand them. They argue with emotions instead of facts which I find ridiculous. The lack of doing any critical thinking scares me in fact. And it’s so easy to see their arguments are emotional because when they try to debate the subject of gun control with an intelligent pro-gun person they are easily ensnared in hypocrisy.

For instance many anti-gunners claim they detest violence. They say we need to ban guns because they are violent devices that no civilized person should use. What they really mean is they detest performing a violent act themselves. When you ask many anti-gunners what their plan is during a home invasion it’s usually “Call the police.” And often upon arriving the police end up having to use violence to nab the home invader, often time after that invader has already harmed or killed the family inside the house.

Another part of the anti-gunner mentality is the lack of personal responsibility. This is apparent when they talk about guns causing violence. Take The Brady Bunch for instance, they say guns kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. They never say people using guns kill other people. There is a huge difference between the two. When you say a gun kills somebody you are saying the device is the cause of death. When you talk to a pro-gun person they will tell you the person with the gun killed the other person. This is because they realize a gun has no morals and no will of it’s own. Without a human using the gun it can’t do anything.

Once again hypocrisy comes into play. If somebody falls off of a roof and dies upon impact most people would say his death was due to him or her falling off of a roof. If we were to blame the device that actually killed him, gravity, we would say, “He was killed with gravity.” No anti-gunner I’ve talked to has described a fall this way because they know gravity is a force with no morals and no free will. But somehow guns are a different class of item with no morals and no free will.

Another observation I have about anti-gunners is the fact they love the role of the victim. This ties in with the hatred of personal responsibility. If you are the victim of a crime you have somebody to blame for your lack of good fortune. A finger can easily be pointed at somebody as the cause for your misery. I’m not in the business of blaming victims but there is something to say to being a victim who just gives up and being a victim who fought their damnedest.

For instance there is no guarantee having a gun on your person can prevent you from being murdered. But having that gun certainly increases your chances of survival. Hell even if you don’t have a gun if you fight your hardest against an attacker with your bare hands you are at least showing a desire to survive and not be a victim. When you ask an anti-gunner what to do in a situation where you’re confronted with an attacker you often get a line similar to, “Just do what the criminal says and you’ll come out fine.” The act of surrendering to an attacker and does not ensure your survival. How can you trust the word of a man who has threatened you? You can’t? But anti-gunners would rather you trust the word of a criminal instead of the capabilities of a law abiding citizen with a gun.

And of course if you bring up the idea of owning guns as a check and balance against a tyrannical government anti-gunners will call you paranoid and tell you that the United States government would never turn tyrannical. They also spew nonsense about citizens with guns wouldn’t stand a chance against the government should they turn tyrannical anyways. They refuse to stop and think about the situation. They won’t consider the fact much of the military would defect and many would be unwilling to fire on civilians. They also lack the historical knowledge to know what a few poor malnourished farmers with AK-47s did to our soldiers in a small country called Vietnam.

So as far as I can see the anti-gunner is a create of illogical arguments and false ideas. I’ve not met one who can put up an argument based on factual evidence. Maybe some day I will find that person but until they I will stay strong with my opinion.

More on Stripping the Right of People on the Terror Watch List

I mentioned earlier about the proposed bill which would prevent anybody who is on the secret “terrorist watch list” from buying firearms. Well Sharp as a Marble posted a good story where morons who don’t know what they are talking about try to spread hysteria through lies…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201766.html?hpid=topnews

From the article…

People named on the government’s terrorist watch list have successfully purchased firearms hundreds of times since 2004, government investigators reported yesterday. In one case, a known or suspected terrorist was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives, the Government Accountability Office reported.

So people who are on a secret list that contains everybody from 70 year old ladies to politicians has no ability to stop people from buying guns and explosives? And this is surprising why?

If these idiots would critically think for just a few minutes they would realize a couple of things. First of all this is a secret list which means nobody outside of the higher echelons of government know who is on it. If you started preventing people who are on it from doing things they previously had no problem doing that might tip them off that they are on this secret list. I know if ended up passing and all of the sudden I got turned down by the NICS system I’d be pretty sure I was on that list.

The second idiotic thing about his list is that no court process has to be done to put somebody on the list. What the supporters of this bill are saying is they support stripping the rights of citizens without due process. Are people who are willing to strip your rights just because somebody put your name on a secret list really the kinds of representatives you want? Do they really represent you? I hope the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

Make no mistake this isn’t about saving guns or keeping guns out the hands of terrorists. This bill is about control and disarming the citizens of America. Remember just because somebody is on this list doesn’t mean they’ve actually done anything illegal. In fact we don’t even know if anybody on this list has done anything since it’s secret.

Finally although I’m not much for conspiracy theories who is to say that people won’t be placed on this list after they buy “too many” guns. After all it’s a list of “suspected” terrorists. And by suspected I mean there isn’t enough evidence to even get a search warrant on the person. Tie this with the recent paper describing right-wing extremist terrorists, which included proponents of the second amendment, and you have a recipe for government terrorism against its citizens. Who knows maybe if you buy two guns in a month you automatically get placed on this list, you just don’t know.

Source: http://blog.robballen.com/2009/06/22/p3524-secret-lists-cannot-stop-firearm-purchases.post

Just Because the Bad Guy is Armed Doesn’t Mean They’ll Win

At least if you’re also armed. From Robb Allen’s blog we have this story…

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/concealed_weapons_permits_rise_061709

The anti-gunners always spout the fact that if you are attacked you’ll be at a disadvantage. This is true but they claim this disadvantage is so great due to your foe being armed and already having their weapon at the ready that you’ll have no chance in Hell of getting to yours. This story flat out destroys that argument…

TAMPA – About a month ago, Audry Sauceda was carjacked and fought back.

He stuck a gun in my side and told me to get out of the car,” Sauceda said while sharing her story with FOX 13 on May 15. “And I pulled out my gun and stuck it in his face, and told him, he needed to get out. He screamed and jumped out of the car.”

Even though the attacker had a gun at the ready the owner of the car was able to get her gun out and into the would be high jacker’s face.

The bottom line is most criminals prey on what they perceive to be easy targets. They want easy money and objects that’s why they are stealing instead of working. To them it’s easier to rob an unarmed person than it is to go to work everyday like the rest of us. But once in a while they find a person who is armed and it turns their life to shit. Not wanting to die most criminals will run at the sight of a gun in the hands of the law abiding.

Of course there will be somebody who says if the woman would have just surrendered her car then she wouldn’t have had a chance of ill happening to her. The problem is you can’t make a deal with a person who is robbing you because you can’t trust them. Just because a criminal says they won’t kill you if you give them your stuff doesn’t mean they won’t kill you.

Source: http://blog.robballen.com/2009/06/19/p3516-getting-the-jump-on-things.post

Some Anti-Gunners Crying over Open Carry

A rather whiny article I found thanks to Mark Vanderberg on Facebook. I only post this because I’m in the mood to shoot down some more illogical statements…

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-starbucks-full-of-guns-the-insanity-of-open-carry

The usual thing will be happening here, I’m going to pull out choice quotations and then destroy them. Let the carnage begin…

The real world implications of the open carry crusade is chilling. Consider:

Ooooh a bullet point list, I love these. Heck I love these so much each point is getting it’s own block quote. Let us consider the implications of…

Sipping hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you;

What is the implication of this? Well I’d probably go over to the guy and strike up a conversation. Who knows what terrible manner of conversation could arise between two pro-gun nut cases. Why there could be talk about the type of gun he’s carrying, the type of gun I’m carrying, politics, coffee, Hell almost anything. I’m sure the baby would have fun getting complements from another person proclaiming how cute he/she is. The only crime that could happen here is paying more for the coffee then you do for some ammunition.

Attending a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt; or

What implication could we have here? Conversation with a fellow pro-gunner after the service is certainly likely. If some crazy asshole broke in with intent to kill people at the service I’m sure he wouldn’t get very far since there would be at least two law abiding citizens with guns there. You know this also sounds like a good implication.

Boarding a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers openly carrying weapons.

Once again conversations could be abound. Also I know my newborn child would be safe from any crazy drug addict who might board the bus and try to rob or kill us. Hell this sounds like the only bus I’d want to ride on.

So what other quotes can be pulled from here? How about this one…

Unless this is the kind of world you want for you and your children, Americans’ need to pick up the phone to call state and federal lawmakers to voice outrage over the gun lobby’s extremist agenda.

Actually since this is exactly the type of world I’d want to live in I have contacted my congress critters, and told them to fight for my second amendment rights.

Oh and I love this one…

It’s ironic that today’s parents are hyper-vigilant about what their children eat, whom they hang out with and whether they have sunscreen on. Yet, in sharp contrast, there is remarkably little awareness or concern about the 280 million guns in civilian hands in our country—many of which are carried into countless public places each day where families frequent.

Maybe it’s because people aren’t concerned what law abiding citizens with guns will do. They are more concerned what criminals with guns will do. Furthermore they probably feel a bit safer knowing that there are people willing to defend themselves and others from criminals with guns. I know I do.

And finally…

After all, allowing a small group of armed gun owners — versus trained law enforcement officers — to make potentially life and death decisions about public safety in restaurants, churches, theaters and parks is a frightening prospect.

Sure I’ll bite, we can let the trained law enforcement officers make life and death decisions. After the many minutes it will take for them to arrive and many people have already been killed. Great idea, let’s let innocent people die because some people are afraid of something they’ve never used, guns.

Seriously I love these anti-gun arguments because they are so full of emotional B.S. but lack any real facts.