NRA Condems Open-Carry Rallies

The NRA is a mixed bag to me. On the one hand, they are an incredibly impressive lobbying organization. They have managed to protect gun rights (and to win gun rights in court) to an amazing degree. On the other hand, they often go too far in terms of absolutism. So imagine my surprise when the NRA came out and basically condemned these open carry rallies where a bunch of gun nuts descend upon a restaurant or store fully armed.

The open carry ralliers claim they are showing support for those businesses that allow patrons to carry guns on the premises. The NRA, however, called these rallies “weird” and noted that they are counter-productive because they typically end up putting so much pressure on the businesses that they respond by changing their policies to disallow the carrying of guns.

Frankly, the NRA is right about this. These open carry rallies are more pointless fringe theater that just doesn’t play well with the public at large. Think about it. These guys think they are seen as modern patriots who dare to stand up for our rights and that we all secretly respect them and wish we were with them. But that’s bunk. That’s not at all how the public sees them. The public sees them engaging in provocative rallies. They are provocative because there is no clear purpose to the rally except to show that they are armed; essentially the message is “I’m dangerous,” and that is not a message that will be well-received.

Moreover, they are carrying guns when there is no need, and that scares people. Indeed, the introduction of a gun into any situation raises tension because guns are dangerous. That’s why responsible gun owners are taught to handle guns with extreme care and to use them sparingly. That’s why you don’t carry a gun unless there’s a specific need and that’s why you never use guns as props. Yet, these rallyists are using their guns as props. So the public will see this as risky and dangerous and out-of-touch. In fact, the biggest problem is that people will see the inherent danger in this, as it takes only one mistake to cause tragic results with a gun, and yet these rallyists are introducing that danger for no purpose. That makes them irresponsible, a menace, or a threat.

At the same time, the businesses aren’t thrilled about this either, as evidenced by most of them changing their policies after such rallies are held to prevent a recurrence. And the reasons are obvious – they lose customers, they find themselves unwillingly forced into a political debate by one side, and they suddenly face demands by customers to change their policies. The easy way out is to ban guns to calm the public and back out of the debate again.

Pro-gun types who understand that you need to win the hearts and minds of the public to maintain those rights also aren’t thrilled by these rallies because they make pro-gun advocates look like they lack judgment, like all our talk of responsible gun ownership is just talk, like we are a menace, and like we simply don’t fit in to the modern world. None of that is good.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Where Is The Rage? Boo hoo hoo

Guns. Duh. Must stop guns. Durrrr. There are few issues that expose the inability of people to use their brains as clearly as gun control. Willful blindness and rank stupidity are the order of the day. Take, for example, an article in which the Christian Science Monitor tried to figure out why the public wasn’t outraged about the failure of the gun control bill in the Senate.

Said the article:

“Only 47 percent of respondents said they were ‘disappointed’ or ‘angry’ that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.

If Americans overwhelmingly support strict background checks, why aren’t they angrier that the Senate failed to pass even moderate background checks? How could 39 percent be "happy" or "relieved" by the result? Where is the outrage to which President Obama was appealing when he called the Senate vote ‘a pretty shameful day for Washington.’”

The article then goes on to look at some of the possibilities. Some apparently suggest that the reason gun control failed is because Americans have an “enduring libertarian streak.” Apparently, “Americans are loath to tell their neighbors what to do.” Maybe, but that doesn’t explain this issue. If it did, then you wouldn’t have the first poll showing that 83% of the American public support background checks, would you? Or are we to believe that people lie on polls to jack up the support for things they plan to oppose?

Others suggest that this shows that the gun lobby lies. In fact, a political scientist quoted in the article says “that’s the only way to make sense of that many people being happy with the outcome.” Idiot. This is usually how morons argue – the bad guys lied, the voters are low-information voters, etc. This is simple delusion for people who don’t like the fact that what they want doesn’t sell.

Others said that maybe the problem was the public realized that this bill wouldn’t have changed anything. Indeed, even the bill’s sponsor Dianne Feinstein “conceded that none of the proposed laws, including her assault weapon ban, would have stopped the [Newton] massacre.” Could be, but then why not be angry that Congress didn’t fix the problem?

In the end, the writer scratches his head, tries to evolve, and fails fails to reach any conclusion.

Ya know... this isn’t that hard. In fact, the answer is actually pretty obvious. When you ask a question in a vacuum, people will respond whether the issue matters to them or not. In other words, asking a question in a poll only tells you how they would answer that question, not whether they care about that issue. Thus, it’s apples and oranges to assume the 83% number in the first poll actually means anyone cares about this issue. And if they don’t care, they won't be angry, will they? This about it this way... if we asked people if they want lobster if given a choice, we may find that 90% of the public says yes, but odds are that few of those people have had lobster lately or intend to have it again in the future. It’s the same thing here. People might support background checks by 83% when asked to state an opinion, but they just don’t care about the issue when they aren’t asked. So why would they be angry if it doesn’t pass? Oh, we don’t get lobster, gee, I’m angry now.

This interpretation actually was born out by the “anger” poll, which showed that only 40% of respondents were following the vote.

IN OTHER WORDS, the public doesn’t care about gun control. We know this because six in ten weren’t paying attention even though this was an issue the media covered obsessively and which Obama talked about incessantly. Even worse for gun-control advocates, of the 40% who cared enough to pay attention, 31% said they were happy the bill failed (only 22% were angry). The rest were non-committal. That means the country breaks down this way on gun control:

That’s right: 72% of the public did not care or actively opposed the bill. 8% favored it. And 20% were open to it. That’s not a chart that’s going to change anything.

Another reason the failure doesn’t make anyone angry is that there is a huge difference between supporting something in principle and supporting the specific bill in which it’s included. Supporters admitted this bill wouldn’t solve the problems they claimed it would. So why would anyone care if it fails unless they are an ideologue who wanted this to pass on principle? Moreover, they tried to fill the bill with all kinds of things with which the public did not agree. Again, this is something only ideologues want and, apparently, there are only 8% of them.

So there’s no contradiction at all between these two polls. To me, it’s pretty obvious that what’s going on is that the public just isn’t ideological on the gun control issue. They will accept reasonable restrictions if they think they will work, but they don’t want solutions that don’t work and they don’t want ideological crap rammed through on the back of the reasonable stuff. Sadly for the ideologues, that’s not enough.

The lessons here are that the liberal media is out-of-touch with the public and this should be a huge warning bell for them -- I kind of laughed when I saw an article the following day talking about how the Republicans who voted against this are now in danger with the voters. Talk about delusional. The other lesson is that the public remains much less emotional and much less ideological than people think.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gun Control Charade

Let’s talk about the gun control deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Buckwild) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa) because there are some interesting facets of it that have come to light. I suppose we’ll need to wait to see how the amendment process goes, but right now it looks like this bill is going to freak out both sides. Interesting.

From what I’ve seen, the stuff Obama claimed he wanted is already out of the bill, but then we knew it would be. Obama’s gun control promises were basically impossible promises mixed in with a few placebos. I suspected the goal was always to get the placebos and declare victory, but now I’m not even sure they even want the placebos. Observe.

The big issue everyone is talking about which Manchin and Toomey worked on is the issue of background checks. Most people favor background checks and this makes a lot of sense. Criminals and the mentally ill simply should not be allowed to buy guns legally and the only way to prevent that is with background checks. Moreover, most on the right have accepted the idea of background checks. So I figured that would happen. But now I have my doubts.

What happened is that there are some concerns with background checks. For example, conservatives don’t want leftists like Obama’s Justice Department trying to create a database of gun owners. There are also concerns that requiring background checks will prevent sales by anyone except retailers. Thus, for example, people couldn't sell their own guns if they wanted get rid of them and they couldn’t give them to their kids. These concerns basically would have killed the bill if they weren’t addressed.

So along come Manchin and Toomey, who apparently worked out deal. This deal will:

● Require background checks for all commercial gun sales, including sales at gun shows, but excludes gifts and sales between families and “temporary transfers” between hunters and sportsmen.

● It will include some form of record keeping, but it’s not clear what that is yet.

● Moreover, the background checks apparently will be done through some sort of licensing requirement rather than a federal database. It’s not clear what that is either, but it sounds like you will need a federal license to buy a gun.

On the surface, the first one seems to make sense, but the next two seem to be intended to make conservatives oppose the bill. Requiring a federal license strikes me as unacceptable because it is the first step in creating a gun-owner database. Indeed, while I see no issue with creating a database of people who cannot own guns, I think that creating a database of those who can is a different matter entirely because it tells the government where to look for gun owners. I think the combination of needing a license and there being some sort of record keeping requirement on sales also makes this worse because it’s pretty obvious this will result in a database of who owns what, even though the bill supposedly prohibits the creation of a gun registry. So I expect conservatives will shoot this bill down.

But then, get this. . . the bill also includes a provision requiring states to grant reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Thus, a state like New York would need to honor and allow someone granted a concealed carry permit in Texas to carry their gun in New York.

Excuse me for a moment...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I’m back. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond to this. I can’t imagine this will be acceptable to them.

Similarly, the bill apparently will allow dealers to sell across state lines. That means that all those wonderfully stupid laws passed in places like Colorado will become meaningless because I could then mail order a gun from Texas. Essentially, all Colorado gun control will do is make Colorado gun dealers less competitive.

Excuse me again...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Ouch, my kidney.

I’m back. Anyway, I think these provisions will be stripped from the bill in the Senate because they would wipe out state-level gun control... or at least make it ineffective. That will then allow the Republicans to vote against the bill on the basis that the Democrats broke the deal they had crafted.

In the end, this lets both sides paint themselves favorably. The Democrats can tell their left that they passed strong gun control measures, which those meanie Republicans stopped. send us money They can also tell the center that they aren’t radicals because even far-right-Republican Toomey agreed before he reneged, plus nothing happened anyway so why worry about it? Meanwhile, the Republicans can tell their base that they stopped this monster cold. send us money They can also tell the center that they are moderates who were ready to reach a deal on background checks if only those radical Democrats hadn’t tried to break the deal.

Call me a cynic, but this reeks of political theater and I’m seriously starting to wonder if the two sides aren’t working together to write the scripts.

Thoughts?

Update: After I wrote this, Lindsey Graham decided to oppose the bill, so it looks like the thing is doomed for sure. His reasoning was that this bill does nothing to solve the problem of gun violence.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

News Round Up

All right, we are in a very, very slow news period as we wait to see what immigration reform will look like and how Obama’s gun regulation scheme will prove to be a paper frosted tiger. So let’s do a news roundup and talk about a few random things.

● Moving to Texas: Rick Perry sent out letters to gun companies in states like Colorado and Connecticut where Democratic legislatures have passed anti-gun ownership laws. He’s apparently bagged his first prize: Colt Competition of Oregon, who make high-accuracy AR-15-type rifles for shooting competitions. Others may soon follow. Several gun equipment makers in Colorado have claimed they will leave as well, but we’ll see if they do. Let’s hope they do because it’s time to show people that legislative stupidity has consequences. And losing jobs is the best way to show that. Speaking of jobs...

● Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: The jobs report was ugly. The media tried half-heartedly to blame this on sequestration, but no one believes that because almost no one feels the effects of that. Others blame it on seasonal hiring, which is more likely the case. In the end though, bad economic performance falls on the president and his party. The media is trying to deflect this, but when the best they can say is, “both parties should be embarrassed by the latest depressing jobs report,” then you know they know they have problems.

Right now, people are worried that the next three years of Obama won’t be any better than the first four. And there’s really no reason they should be. None of the things holding back the economy have changed. Basically Obama tossed some money out the window of his car as drove through the streets, that didn’t work and now he’s begging for gas money to do it again. No one has considered finding ways to lower the cost of labor or to make working more profitable. Maybe it’s time for a change? Maybe it’s time for Hillary...

● Hillary Clinton: The leftist media is starting to go all fan-boy over the prospect of Hillary running for President in 2016. Indeed, many of the articles I’ve seen on this are practically orgasmic:

“It was another week in American politics highlighted by the overwhelming and deep yearning by Democrats that Hillary should run for president in 2016, and the overwhelming and powerful support she would receive from Americans if she does.”

Yeah, everyone would love our Goddess... unlike that black guy, that pretend-messiah who can’t solve our problems. In fact, this particular article said something that struck me as rather interesting on this very point:

“It would be spectacular if Bill and Hillary Clinton would work with the Clinton Global Initiative to devise major new jobs proposals.”

This is interesting because it suggests that our slobbering author has given up hope that Obama will solve the jobs crisis, doesn’t it? And if Hillary can come up with a jobs plan as this hack believes, then why doesn’t the hack want Hillary sharing this with Obama? Why hope that Hillary waits to unveil it in her own run? I’d say the media crush is shifting to Hillary.

In fact, in the past few weeks there have been a series of things that make me think the media is done with Obama. There’s been a ton of coverage of the failures of Obamacare. There’s been extensive coverage of Obama’s “gaffe” of complimenting a chick attorney general on her looks. There’s been coverage of how big business is raking in the cash from Obama’s programs. There’s been coverage about Obama’s gun push failing because he didn’t really plan it right. And there’s been a lot of anger about the jobs report directed at “both parties.” These aren’t things that would have been covered in the past and the fact they are now suggests that the media is ready to be harsher on him.

Back to Hillary, the only real question right now is whether or not rank and file leftist fruitcakes are on the same page as the limousine media leftists. I have my doubts. So while it looks like Hillary will be anointed the heiress apparent to the pretend messiah by the media, I’m not so sure she’s going to do all that well in the primaries.

At least there’s only one Clinton, right? Uh...

● Spawn of Clintons: As if this will surprise anyone, Chelsea is now dropping hints that she might one day very soon be interested in being handed an elective office. Shocker! I’d rather vote for a Kardashian.

Anything I missed?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

No Tin Foil Hat Shortage

Let’s debunk some idiocy. Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security bought up all the ammunition in this here country? Yep. Obama is using DHS to create a de facto gun control by buying up all the bullets so we reel ’merkicans can’t defend ourselves when DHS comes roundin’ us up. Yessir. Or not.

Right now, it’s very popular among paranoid idiots certain people, to talk about this amazing bullet conspiracy. They went down to the Gun & Smoke and found no ammo on the shelves. So they asked the clerk where all the ammo had gone. Said clerk responded that DHS bought all the ammo so there would be a shortage of ammo... something something... and we all end up in camps!

Mark “tinfoil hat” Levin added this:

“I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses. I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared. I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”

Get back on your meds Mark.

Anyway, this conspiracy theory is quite popular at the moment because IQs have dropped in recent years. It’s so popular that Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan) even asked DHS why they were buying up all the ammo. Do you know what DHS told him? Nuthing! They refused to answer! At least, that’s what Huelskamp told CPAC, “They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that.” Problem is, that’s a lie. Not only did DHS respond to his letter, but they previously responded to an identical request from Sen. Tom Coburn.

Drudge then ran with this, using the following three headlines: “Homeland Denies Massive Ammunition Purchase,” “Won’t Answer Congress” and “Cover-up?”. These headlines are entirely misleading. DHS did not deny the purchase and they did answer Congress. In fact, if you read the links behind the headlines you will see that quite clearly. Be careful what you trust from Drudge.

So what is the truth? Let’s explain the ammo purchase.

First, the contracts in question are DHS contracts for the purchase of “up to” 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over five years. That’s about 320 million rounds a year. That may sound like a lot, but consider this. DHS has more than 100,000 law enforcement personnel including border security (ICE). They use bullets in their jobs. They use bullets for training. They use bullets for quarterly qualifications. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, for example, uses 15 million rounds a year in training exercises, and that’s just one center. Last year, DHS used 148 million rounds. Over five years that would be 740 million rounds and that’s without them operating a single concentration camp for Glenn Beck listeners. Even the NRA has said this purchase is not excessive or unusual.

Moreover, when something like ammo is purchased, agencies often purchase for multiple agencies under the same contract. This creates economies of scale and lets smaller agencies piggyback on the expertise of larger agencies. You have no idea, for example, how much stuff the Army buys for agencies you would never imagine.

Further, what you need to understand is that a contract for “up to” 1.6 billion rounds is NOT a contract for 1.6 billion rounds. Government contracts don’t work that way. Requirements contracts typically dramatically overstate the actual purchase to be made because government procurement is a cumbersome process. For example, new contracts can be protested and delayed, whereas task orders under an existing contract can’t. Also, getting money for new work is difficult, especially across fiscal years, whereas using money already on a contract is easy. So it is simply easier to issue a massive, multi-year contract that covers every possible need plus a huge fudge factor and then issue task orders under that contract as needed, than it is to issue a new contract whenever a need arises. I can’t tell you the number of contracts I’ve seen that never reached even a tenth of their face value. The truth is, DHS will buy what they always buy and the rest of the contract will expire and it won’t be close to 1.6 billion.

Here’s the thing. This is all publicly available information which people like Levin and Huelskamp could have looked up if they cared about the truth. . . but they don’t. They would rather mix ignorance with paranoia and spin this crap to get your attention. And let me add that this fantasy has been going on for some time. In 2008, right after Obama got elected, these same people screamed about the army being retrained at Fort Polk, Louisiana to go house to house to confiscate guns. That didn’t happen. Then in 2009, they discovered the shortage of ammo for the first time and they attributed it to new regulations by the EPA intended to prevent the manufacture of bullets. Only, that didn’t happen either. Now it’s the great bullet purchase mystery.

This is nonsense. According to the NRA, there are between 10 and 12 billion rounds of ammunition produced in the US each year with “billions more imported.” Now do the math. That means there will be more than 50-60 billion rounds produced in the US over five years. In that same period, the feds will buy up a maximum of 1.6 billion rounds, or 2.5% of all domestically produced rounds. Is it remotely possible that the feds buying 2.5% of the domestically produced ammo will cause an ammo shortage in the country? Hardly. The shortage, if there is such a thing, is because people are panic buying because people like Levin are telling them there is a shortage.

By the way, Levin claims this 1.6 billion round purchase represents 24 times the number of bullets used in Iraq. Here’s his quote:

“To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the Department of Homeland Security is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war.”

This is being repeated in article after article now, but it’s total crap. According to the GAO in 2005, US troops were firing 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition per year in Afghanistan and Iraq (about 28 times what Levin claims), so the 1.6 billion round purchase wouldn’t even cover a full year... much less 24 years. Again, this information was out there if Levin wanted to check it.

Don’t believe this garbage. And more importantly, don’t trust people who push this garbage.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guns For Sale...Except in NY

In response to the recent school shooting in Newtown, CT, the New State Legislature passed the NY SAFE Act which will go into full effect beginning March 15, 2013. Now it's not as if the gun laws in New York have been too lenient. Even before this new act, NY had some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. And as most legislation that is passed with all the sound and fury and all due speed that only elected officials can bring us, it is, shall we say, flawed.

Right off the bat, oops, our stalwart Legislators failed to add any exemptions for law enforcement. However, Governor Cuomo, looking all Presidential-y and in command-y, admits this flaw and will do something about that directly in the near future sometime.

And I quote (okay, not really, but I bet this is what his “internal dialogue” sounded like):

“Really, we all know that we didn’t mean that the police couldn’t…oh, well, you understand, don’t you? Look, I’m running for President and I had to use this to show how good I am at being in command! I had to get this shoved through our state Legislature to show President Obama up ‘cause HE can’t get it shoved through Congress. Well, and just as a little cherry on top, it should prove what good Democrats we are in New York [which might just help get those extra Hurricane Sandy dollars. So what if I only read the first few provisions! We got it mostly right, right? It coulda’ happened to anyone?”

And “Scene”…

Anyhow, the following are the new provisions of SAFE Act [from Wikipedia] and a Q&A from the Governor's own website:

- Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. The maximum capacity for a detachable magazine is reduced from ten rounds to seven. Magazines owned before passage of the SAFE Act able to hold seven to ten rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. .22 caliber tubular magazines are exempt from this limit. Previously legal "pre-1994-ban" magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds are not exempt, and must be sold within one year to an out-of-state resident or turned into local authorities. The magazine limit takes effect April 15, 2013.[8]

- Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup. Ammunition background checks will begin January 15, 2014.[9]

- Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

- Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

- Stolen guns are required be reported within 24 hours. Failure to report can result in a misdemeanor.

- Reduces definition of "assault weapon" from two identified features to one. The sale and/or transfer of newly defined assault weapons is banned within the state, although sales out of state are permitted. Possession of the newly-defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year.

- Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. Private sale background checks will begin March 15, 2013.[9]

- Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection.[9] Unsafe storage of assault weapons is a misdemeanor.

- Bans the Internet sale of assault weapons.

- Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.[10]

- Increases penalties for shooting first responders (Webster provision) to life in prison without parole.

- Limits the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. However, existing permit holders have to opt into this provision by filing a form within 120 days of the law's enactment.[citation needed] There also may exist issues with respect to "registered" owners in the new regulations vs "permit" holders under previous law.

- Requires pistol permit holders or owners of registered assault weapons to have them renewed at least every five years.

- Allows law enforcement officials to pre-emptively seize a person's firearms without a warrant if they have probable cause the person may be mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime.

Okay, so do you remember in the first paragraph where I said that oops, they forgot to exclude law enforcement? Well, there are now a whole slew of gun manufacturers who supply all those law enforcement agencies and officers in New York especially and they noticed. And they are taking these provisions very seriously. At least 30 suppliers have stated that they will no longer be supplying weapons and ammunition to any local, county, state, or federal law enforcement agencies in New York as per the provisions mandated by the SAFE Act. Some openly admit that is their response to the attack on the 2nd Amendment and some admit only to wanted to follow the laws of the state of New York. A rather bold move either way, but then none of these companies are hurting for business as per some of the disclaimers on their websites apologizing (or boasting) for delays because of record sales.

There is a third aspect to this which makes it even more interesting for our Governor. One of the oldest gun manufacturing companies in the country is Remington Arms Company founded in 1816 in Ilion, New York. Remington has been in continual operation for nearly 200 years and is one of the major employers in Illion and the surrounding area in Upstate New York. Well, Governor Cuomo is having to scramble to keep them from taking one of their many recent relocation offers from savvy Governors in those gun-ownership friendly states like Texas. So far they haven’t taken the bait, but the less business friendly New York state continues to be, the more seriously these offers will taken.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Co-Ed Rape=Not "Rape-Rape"

We've talked occasionally about not letting liberals off the hook so easily when they shoot their mouths off. Well, the mouth shooting-off was in rare form this week, thanks to a couple of blowhards. Meet Todd Akin's leftist counterparts.

This week, no doubt in reaction to recent furor over guns, the Colorado State House passed a bill that would ban concealed-carry on all state college campuses. (This is also proof that the state needs to go ahead and conduct a purge of all California-born residents, but I digress.) There were all the usual reasons cited: guns in the hands of intoxicated youths are bad, concealed-carry makes random shootings more likely, blah blah blah. I want to point out, though, that for once, Republicans did something smart; rather than talk vaguely about liberty and such, they made the issue specific, arguing that gun control takes away the ability of people to defend themselves--not least threatened young women. A gun-rights advocate said of concealed-carry:

"The types of people who go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit are exactly the people who any mother or father would want to be able to defend themselves on campus. A woman shouldn't have to wait until it's too late to find out if she's actually going to be raped or not. We should allow competent, trained women the ability to defend themselves."

This is really very smart messaging. It puts the matter in concrete terms--people might be divided on gun rights, but nobody wants to stop a woman from defending herself. Also, this could serve as a bridge to certain demographics which typically do not vote Republican: Young, single, professional women in this case. But it could easily work in creating a dialogue with other groups. I've even heard many openly gay people support wide-ranging gun rights, if only to protect themselves from potential "hate crimes." And then there's the fact that such an argument forces Democrats to try and explain how this doesn't leave women vulnerable, with a high chance that they'll end up saying something really stupid. Which they did.

Witness one Democratic state rep, Joe Salazar, who in the course of debate on the bill defended the legislation by saying that although women might feel like they could get raped, there's no way of knowing for sure. "It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And...[if you feel like you're being threatened when you actually aren't] you pop out that gun and you pop...pop around at somebody."

First of all, "pop around at somebody"? I'm pretty sure, based on that alone, that Mr. Salazar has never handled a gun in his life. Secondly, safe zones? Really? I've spent most of the past seven years on college campuses, and I couldn't point out a safe zone to you if I tried. But I guess they have magical properties that prevent thugs from getting anyone inside them. Maybe that's why I don't know of any. They're invisible to young men, or something.

But I haven't even reached the piece de resistance yet. I don't watch Fox's The Five often; apart from Gutfeld, most of the people on there are just too shallow. But the show does reveal a lot about liberals and conservatives through their gut reactions to news pieces. For proof of this, look no further than the panel's representative from the Left, Bob Beckel, who on Tuesday, as this issue from Colorado was being discussed, defended the Dems by arguing that campus rape was not a good reason for concealed-carry, because turns out, it doesn't actually exist. Really. His words were "When was the last time you heard about a rape on campus?" and he then went on to suggest that date rape didn't count. Well, then! I mean, even Akin didn't suggest that rape wasn't a thing.

Look, Beckel is, as I said, a blowhard, and one could make the excuse that he was speaking off the cuff and the words came out wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that however frequent liberals believe campus rape to be, they would rather put this nanny-state project above the welfare of young women. If you think that's too harsh, consider the University of Colorado's guidelines, presumably written out after calm deliberation, about what women should do in a threatening situation. Among the winners: "If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense." "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating." "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." So there you go, ladies....you can't use lethal force to defend your body, but you can humiliate yourselves to your heart's content. I know I shouldn't speak for women or whatever, but if I had two X chromosomes and were placed in that position, I think I'd rather say "Stop or I'll shoot!" than "Wait, I'm on my period!" But that could just be me being misogynistic.

Anyway, this whole episode, despite the possible signing into law of this terrible bill, is good for our side. Not only did it provide an effective counter to Republican missteps concerning women's rights (or at least it would have if the media had given it equal coverage), it shows how the Left can't even provide a coherent platform. They claim to support empowering women, but when a dear cause like gun control comes up, that goes right out the window. We need more episodes like this.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Discussion: David Mamet, Conservative

David Mamet - Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, Oscar nominated screenwriter, essayist, novelist, and Conservative. His body of work to date includes such thought-provoking plays such as Glengarry Glen Ross (currently in revival on Broadway starring Al Pacino) and Speed-The-Plow and screenplays for The Verdict and Wag The Dog, he took time out to pen this piece for Newsweek-slash-Daily Beast (a/k/a "News-Beast" or "Beastly-News"). It is kind of surprising that this op/ed piece actually got passed Evan Thomas and the editors at News-Beast. Who knows why, but please read it and let's discuss. So without further adieu...

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm written by David Mamet

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Theater of the Absurd: Gun Control

I’m a huge cynic, but sometimes the cynicism from Washington shocks even me. Take the issue of gun control. Obama made a huge noise... gonna take action! The gun control advocates fiercely exploited the bodies of dead children... what about the children! Talk radio spoke about the great gun grab and impeachment... harrumph, Nazi Germany! A battle for the ages was forming!! Don’t make me laugh.

Here’s the reality. Guns are the Democratic version of abortion for the Republicans. The idea of banning guns, just like banning abortion, whips up the vocal part of the base and generates mucho dinero for the political class. But both parties realize that actually pushing these issues is suicidal. For one thing, the public doesn’t like either idea. For another, when you have a sucker on the hook and you are emptying his pockets, you never give him what he wants because then he stops paying out.

So here we are, with both sides doing their best to whip up the suckers and empty their pockets. And then Obama strikes... he issues his proposals. To say that liberals should be underwhelmed and furious is an understatement. Here is what the Hustler in Chief actually proposed:

● Reinstating the assault weapon ban.
● Restoring the 10-round limit on magazines.
● Eliminating armor-piercing bullets.
● Requiring criminal background checks on gun sales.
● Hiring more cops.
● Creating a new federal gun trafficking law.
● Providing mental health services in schools.
● By God, he’s going to nominate the ACTING head of the ATF to become the official head of the ATF.

Yawn. Worthless. Even the NRA used to push for background checks. The 10-round clip thing will only be on new guns, so the billion existing larger clips will still be out there. The assault weapon’s ban is a joke as it just makes manufacturers remove cosmetic features of guns, which can be replaced with aftermarket parts. Gun trafficking is already illegal. Mental health services are already provided in schools. And more cops just means donut sales will go up.

This plan is designed specifically to do nothing. Not a single issue here will remove a gun from anybody’s hand. Not a single issue here will prevent anyone from buying anything they want or shooting anyone they want.

This is a joke.

So are liberals upset? You tell me. The Huffington Post article introducing Obama’s plan fawned over it and actually started like this:

“In a bold and potentially historic attempt to stem the increase in mass gun violence, President Barack Obama unveiled on Wednesday the most sweeping effort at gun control policy reform in a generation.”

Bold? Potentially historic? Sweeping? Huh? Clearly this reporter is delusional, right? Let’s see what the gun control groups say. How about this quote from Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

“This is a monumental moment. It’s a long time coming and we’re thrilled the president’s putting the full weight of his office behind this.”

Give me a break. Your organization has been waiting for a long time for a placebo?

Stop and think about this for a moment and ask yourself why these people would be declaring this such a victory? In a word: fundraising. By describing this mouse as a lion, they can get the bases on both sides to pour their money into this. The left will pony up to try to finally defeat evil guns once and for all... the right will pony up to save the Second Amendment from extinction! And the truth is, this bill couldn’t be weaker if it was designed by the NRA.

And it gets worse... or better. See, everything Obama is proposing needs to be approved by the House. That means the Republicans get a chance to milk their suckers too and the Democrats get a second chance to milk their suckers. And then the House can make sure nothing happens so they can use this issue again in the future. Perfect balance.

This is more theater of the absurd folks. Both sides are playing their bases for suckers. This bill is about as meaningless as it can possibly get in the way of guns, yet the political machine and its hangers on will tell you that this is life and death. And in the end, both bases will love their sides: the Democrats will have martyred themselves and the Republicans will have stood tall for freedom... and no one will have noticed it was all a big joke. Moreover, since nothing will actually happen, even if some part of this pass, the rest of the public will shrug their shoulders and not need to vote for either side because nothing changed. This is a scam designed to make you think that the parties are at each other’s throats as they quietly work together to jack up the deficit by another half billion dollars.

Anyway, there are two points here. First, don’t let yourself get sold a bill of goods. Don’t get worked up. Don’t give money. Don’t cite any of this as a reason to support your side. They are playing you for a sucker.

Secondly, consider what I’ve said and use this as a test to grade the pundits, the radio talkers, and the politicians. If they are telling you that this is really a world-ending issue, maybe you should ask yourself what else they’ve told you that is crap.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

This Week in Foolishness

Whether you're liberal or conservative, there are few things more enjoyable than seeing someone you dislike really stepping in it. Happily for conservatives, liberals, being liberals, tend to do this quite a bit. Let's review some recent examples.

The Maher-Trump Smackdown. If you were to rank buffoons on a scale of 1 to 10, Bill Maher would probably merit a 1.9 and Donald Trump a 2.6, and what direction that scale goes in is for you to decide. I guess I'd take the Donald over the skeevy HBO host, but really, I wish they'd both go away.

Still, on some level, I have to admire Trump just a bit. On Monday night, Maher, a guest on Jay Leno, demanded that Trump prove he is not the result of "his mother having sex with an orangutan." If the billionaire did so, Maher promised to pay $5 million to the charity of his choice, cheekily suggesting Hair Club for Men. First off, this may well be the oldest line in the book where Trump is concerned, and does little to prove that Maher is in fact a "comedian"; secondly, everyone ought to have known by now how he would react. Within 24 hours, Trump's lawyer (or one of them; I'm assuming he has an entire branch of the legal service on retainer) had sent Maher's office a copy of the Donald's birth certificate, showing that his father was in fact of the Homo sapiens variety, and demanded payment of the aforementioned $5 million. Probably to rub it in, Trump's requested charities (he asked that the money be divided among several) did not include Hair Club for Men, but did include Hurricane Sandy Victims, the March of Dimes, and the American Cancer Society. That should teach Maher not to shoot his mouth off for a while. Like, a week.

Crap California Does, Volume 18. If there's any part of the U.S. thoroughly immune to reality, it would of course be the Golden State. I could write a whole blog post just about that, but let's stick to one aspect of it--their tax silliness. Back in 2011, Sacramento passed some substantial tax increases, which naturally hit businesses and the rich the hardest. Presumably chortling to themselves, "Those people threatening to fold their companies and leave the state! They wouldn't dare!!!" Governor Brown and company made plans for increased spending from the new revenue--only to find that the new revenue wasn't appearing, which simultaneously caused the state's budget deficit to rise from $9 to $16 billion. The Democrats' response to this was to heroically pass Proposition 30 this past Election Day, raising taxes in the state yet again.

I trust you can guess what's coming next.

Yep. In the first five weeks following Election Day 2012, California saw a drop in tax revenue of roughly a billion dollars. This, while state agencies increased their spending even further, in expectation of the dollars Prop 30 was going to magically produce. As a result, California's deficit has increased to a nasty $27 billion.

Feel free to laugh for as long as you can forget that all those idiots are leaving the state in droves and screwing things up for the rest of us in our own homes.

Guns, Guns, Guns! Ever since the ghastliness of Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has been shamelessly beating the drum on gun control, proposing everything from an assault-weapons ban to universal background checks (never mind that none of this would have prevented the massacre). The much-demonized NRA has been threatened invited to participate in this "dialogue" on guns in America, which of course only means that they're expected to tearfully confess their lack of vigilance and concern and promise to meet the anti-gun lobby in the middle. Their failure to do so has brought on the usual round of denunciations and warnings that "there will be consequences" for their refusal to compromise. Apparently, said consequences include....increasing NRA membership?

The Association revealed Thursday morning that it has gained 100,000 members in the past three weeks, raising total membership to 4.2 million. A spokesman expressed the hope in a press release that they hoped to cross the 5 million threshold before this "debate" has run its course. And given that a membership costs $25, this influx means that, from several viewpoints, the NRA may well emerge from it more powerful than before.

All of which is meant, not only to amuse you (hopefully), but also to encourage you a bit. As we look for ways to beat the liberals, keep in mind--they may end up beating themselves. Thanks, liberals.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hypocrites and Fools

I really did not want to talk about this Connecticut school shooting. We’re about to go into Christmas mode, and it strikes me as disrespectful and depressing to discuss this. BUT the left is in full exploitation mode and it’s pissing me off. So I’m going to make a few points myself.

(1) The left is despicable. This guy hadn’t even stopped shooting and they were gleefully rushing to microphones to politicize this event. Show me a single leftist who didn’t start screaming about gun control. And that’s not all. These same people who claim to care about the victims made death threats to NRA members. Vile hypocrites. Obama’s press secretary tried to connect this to tax hikes. Teachers unions have tried to turn this into demands for more money. And liberals everywhere are masturbating thinking about Obama’s meaningless speech: “Oh, it was like the Gettysburg address... for dummies.” Some of them are even trying to hide their own shame by claiming that the people politicizing this issue are the people who refuse to politicize it. All of you on the left are despicable.

(2) Liberals are to blame for this killer. Yes, I said it.

Liberals dismantled the mental health system in the 1960s. Rather than fixing it, they just turned people loose, and they left a legal system that is incapable of dealing with the mentally ill.

Liberals run Hollywood. Hollywood exploits gun violence for profit and makes it cool to solve your disputes with violence.

Liberals run the media, the same media which glorifies these killers and gives them exactly what they crave – fame. Even now, these same journalists who wring their hands about guns continue to try to outdo themselves to glorify this guy. They want to report on everything that made him tick. They want pictures of his life, to explain his motives, to understand his needs and desires. They want to get rich and famous making him important.

Liberals trade in hate. THEY have built a culture based on pitting one group against another, THEY traffic in jealousy, spite as policy, race-baiting and fear as a substitute for loyalty. THEY whined about Sarah Palin using a cross-hairs image, yet THEY talk about “enslavement” and “a war on ___” and “hostage taking” and every other violence rhetorical image you can imagine. Liberals are to blame for the hateful culture we have right now. And let me add that anecdotally, Liberals make up the majority of internet trolls. THEY are the ones who post hateful rhetoric, who make death threats on twitter, who call for the imprisonment and execution of the people they don’t like... like the Rich or Republicans or Jews.

(3) Gun Control Is Stupid and It’s An Evasion. I understand that liberals are stupid. They don’t grasp logic. But even they should understand that gun control is not an answer. This killer was in violation of dozens of laws, and not one of those laws stopped him. Adding more laws won’t help. And even if they could somehow ban guns outright, that wouldn’t have stopped him either. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, nor did the 9/11 terrorists. Nor did Andrew Kehoe, who blew up killed 45 people, including 38 children, and wounded 58 more in 1927. All those mass murderers of grade school kids in China used knives. Offering gun control as a solution is as idiotic as Weight Watchers telling dieters to ban forks from their house. It’s stupid. It won’t work, and they know that.

In this case, all the whining about gun control is an evasion. This is liberals trying to evade responsibility for the fact they are the cause of this. It is their behavior, as outlined above, which has created the angry, hateful culture which spurs these guys on.

So don’t feed me this crap about “it’s time to act.” If it was time to act, then you liberals would stop being such hateful creatures. You would stop trying to steal that which does not belong to you and you would stop trying to demonize those who disagree with you. Seriously, I hope Santa brings you all a big old bag of go f*ck yourself.

- - - - - -

In other news, I am still beating my head against the wall on the fiscal cliff stuff. Boehner proposed a millionaire tax, the same tax hike that Pelosi proposed early. This was a great move, and yet, the right is going insane. Drudge is stupidly playing up the idea that Boehner has morphed into Pelosi and talk radio is whining about Boehner being a sell out.

Lost in all of this idiocy is something key. Why are the Democrats voting against the millionaire tax? Talk radio land isn’t asking that.

According to Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, the only reason Pelosi ever proposed a millionaire tax in the past was “as a political ploy” because she knew the Republicans would vote it down and then they would look like they support the rich. Naturally, that worked. And talk radio backed that to the hilt at the time.

Now talk radio is horrified that Boehner is proposing it and they are slamming him as a sell out. Yet, none of them have asked why Pelosi won’t agree to this now? Hoyer’s excuse is that it wouldn’t bring in enough revenue, but that argument makes no sense in two ways. First, if it doesn’t bring in enough revenue, then doesn’t that mean Obama lied about only taxing the rich? Funny how talk radio missed that point.

Secondly, even if it doesn’t bring in enough revenue, who don’t the Democrats who claim to hate the rich agree to it and then seek other tax hikes to get the rest? Could it be that they don’t really hate the rich after all and this is just an act. . . as I’ve been saving since forever? Could it be they know they can’t get other taxes later once people realize that someone other than millionaires will pay it?

I am no fan of Boehner, but he finally did the right thing and it exposed something massively important. Yet, conservatives have missed this point because they are too busy whining about the poor millionaires whose taxes might go up and attacking the guy who handed them a golden nugget. Wake up idiots. Maybe Santa will bring our talk radio hosts a clue?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberals: Abandon Shame, All Ye Who Enter Here.

We had to hear from a couple of a******s over the weekend. Only one of them did something criminal. The other just did something really hackish and amoral. Both made me mad, and if you were following them, they probably made you mad too.


For those of you who missed it, the pro football world was rocked on Saturday by news that Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher shot and killed his girlfriend (and mother of their three-month-old daughter) that morning after an argument; he then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and blew his head off, in front of his coaches no less. There's nothing I can say about this act in itself that hasn't been said already, except for a couple of random thoughts.

1) A murder-suicide is not a "tragedy," it's a crime. A tragedy is when you lose the brakes on your car and go off the road and die. If it happens because someone has tampered with those brakes, it ceases to be a tragedy and becomes second-degree murder. So let's stop calling it that on TV, please.

2) Some of Belcher's teammates were posting on Twitter Saturday night comments to the effect of "So sorry for you, bro [meaning Belcher]. We'll miss you, good buddy," etc. I don't want to be too harsh on them for saying they'll miss their teammate, but what the heck? Because of his actions, their child will grow up never knowing her mother. It's sad that he took his own life as well (now she'll never know her father, either), but this is all on him. If you can't realize that, you've got a screwy value system indeed.

All of which gets to the main thrust of my commentary. During halftime on NBC's Sunday Night Football, sportscaster Bob Costas gave a short "opinion" piece, which he regularly does about current athletics issues, and of course this time it was about the murder-suicide. Costas gave a very moving speech about the need to pray for the family and friends of those involved and expressed the hope that they can all find peace and some kind of happiness soon. Oh, wait--no he didn't. He used the opportunity to make a 90-second pitch for gun control. Costas approvingly quoted at length a Kansas City sportswriter, Jason Whitlock, who blamed the shooting on "gun culture." I suppose this is slightly correct, as you do in fact need a gun to shoot someone, but the gist of his argument was that people get killed because having these weapons causes minor spats over loud music or whatever to get heated, someone pulls a gun, and bang--lots of dead people. "Handguns do not enhance our safety," Whitlock (and Costas) claimed, and ended with these appalling words: "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins [his girlfriend] would both be alive today."

What. The. @#$%?!?!

In this one statement, you have multiple displays of liberalism in its worst forms. First, there's the belief that what people do is not their fault, it's society's fault. Apparently Belcher was just a nice guy until he got access to a gun (a legally purchased gun, for the record), and then turned into a killer. Except he wasn't. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but from what we know of this guy now, he seems to have been a malignant bully since adolescence and exhibiting violent behavior at least as far back as his college days. So yeah, I'm pretty sure if his girlfriend hadn't met her end from a bullet, it would have been from a knife or fist (and God only knows what kind of abuse was going on behind the scenes). Second, there's the liberal notion that they can make people better by controlling their lives, which is where gun control policy comes in: Take away people's means of being violent to each other, and they will no longer be violent at all. And finally, you have the willful ignorance that stems from overlooking all the evidence that contradicts these beliefs.

As most of you are no doubt aware (and as it only took me a few minutes to look up), gun control and firearms murder rates are in fact inverse to each other. During the same period in the late 20th century in which gun sales in America peaked, pushing the total number to about 200 million owned, murder rates fell by nearly 40 percent. Meanwhile, Britain practically banned the ownership of handguns at this time, and then saw a rise in gun-related crimes of 40 percent in two years. Cases of armed robbery in London rose from four in 1954 to over 1,700 by 1998. But none of this matters to liberals.

On top of all this, there's the liberal assumption that guns are racist because more black people die from firearms incidents more often than whites; therefore, they must be part of a conspiracy by "The Man" to oppress African-Americans. Costas himself was a bit more oblique on this point, but Whitlock made it explicit, saying in an interview, "I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths...and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don't have our best interests [at heart}." This is the sort of crap Jeremiah Wright and other racist crackpots have been spewing for years, and it's just as racially divisive as the actual KKK.

Even so, I blame Costas more in this case than Whitlock. You have to blame the latter for the original words, but he's just a local hack. Costas has a reputation (he's also a left-winger and was a definite Bush-basher, but that gets less attention). A lot of people, myself included, deliberately tuned in to SNF's halftime coverage to see what he, as someone with authority on sports culture, would say about this, and instead got liberal proselytizing. And Costas had to know this would be a controversial thing to say, especially so soon after the act itself. Nonetheless, he chose to use his time on-air to exploit a horrific incident for political purposes. This is shameful.

But the Democrats, of course, have no sense of shame.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leftists Exploit Gun Tragedy. . . As Usual

With the Aurora shooting a couples days removed now and emotions cooling, let’s talk rationally about the issue of guns. As usual, the left has hopped on this tragedy in full exploitation mode. They’ve blamed everything from guns to the Tea Party. They are, as always, wrong. Let’s discuss.

As with Gabby Giffords, the left immediately jumped out and pointed their twisted fingers at the Tea Party. This charge was led by ABC News who decided the shooter had to belong to the Tea Party because they found a Tea Party member with a similar name. Naturally, they never bothered to investigate before smearing the Tea Party. Eventually, they were forced to retract this, but not before every other new outlet repeated the slander. Those outlets never withdrew their reports.

Meanwhile, the usual pack of leftist celebrities took to the airwaves to whine that this proves we need gun control. Roger Ebert even whined that this proved that concealed carry laws don’t work because no one in the crowd had a gun. Think about that. In Roger’s mind concealed carry means that someone in every crowd must be carrying a gun even when the theater and law forbid it. What a twisted turd he has become.

In any event, none of this is working. Almost no one on Capitol Hill has called for gun control laws. To the contrary they are running like scared rabbits. Why? Because polls show the public’s support for gun rights at an all-time high. Indeed, an October 2011 Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans would not support gun bans. This was the highest level in 50 years. Incidentally, the same poll showed 68% approval for the evil NRA.

So why doesn’t the public fall for the blathering of the moronic celebrities and professional tragedy exploiters? Easy, it’s common sense.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, gun tragedies are incredibly rare. The United States has 2.5 million deaths annually, but only 12,000 of those are related to guns (0.4% of all deaths) – many of these are shootings by police. This places gun deaths 43rd on the list of causes of death in the United States, well behind diseases, cancers, suicides, diarrhea related deaths, unintentional injuries, measles, falls, drownings, poisonings, fires, asthma and road accidents.

And mass shootings of the type in Aurora are even more rare. For example, in the last 10 years, there have been only seven shooting sprees at schools in the US that resulted in three or more deaths. Moreover, Europe has a comparable mass murder rate, despite its strict gun control laws. Europe saw six such mass murders in the same period, and the European ones had a higher body count. China too has seen a spree of stabbings at schools that have resulted in a vastly higher number of deaths than American shootings. So this problem the celebrity left is whining about simply about doesn’t exist, and people realize that.

Secondly, guns don’t kill people. There are 250 million guns in the United States. If guns “caused” crimes as the left claims, then there would 250 million murders a year. Even if only one in ten people fell under the evil spell of these guns, we would still be dealing with 25 million murders a year. Heck, even one percent means 2.5 million murders. Yet only 12,000 people are killed annually in the United States by guns. That works out to less than 0.004% of guns being used to kill someone. . . 40 out of every million guns in the country. Guns do not cause crime.

We know this from Switzerland too. Everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun, yet gun crime is virtually nonexistent. It’s so low they don’t even bother keeping official statistics on gun crime. It is, in fact, lower than the gun crime rate in Japan, which absolutely bans guns. Switzerland ranks as the fourth safest country in the world and its violent crime rate is 1/100th that of Britain, where guns are banned.

Moreover, there is strong evidence that guns actually prevent crime. When Britain banned private gun ownership in 1996, crime rates skyrocketed. According to American Enterprise Institute economist John Lott, an examination of information released by the British Home Office showed that the violent crime rate rose 69% following the gun ban (with murders increasing 54%). Interestingly, in the five years prior to the ban, such crimes had been falling consistently.

A county by county examination by Lott of crime rates in the United States, found that right-to-carry states experienced (on average) lower rates of violent crime (27% lower), murder (32% lower), robbery (45% lower) and aggravated assault (20% lower) than states with more restrictive gun laws. Other studies conducted at Vanderbilt University, SUNY Binghamton, Claremont-McKenna College, George Mason University, and the College of William and Mary, have supported Lott’s findings.

So Ebert’s attempt to prove that concealed laws don’t worry through a bad analogy is proven ludicrous by comparison to these statistics.

The truth is the world is full of nuts. And if they want to find a way to kill people, they will find a way. It is better to let decent people arm themselves so they can defend themselves than it is to disarm the very people who would help, leaving everyone at the mercy of the crazies. It’s interesting that our left thinks this way. Why do you supposed they don’t want you being able to defend yourself?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Double Dose of Failure

Let’s cover two short issues today. First, we have economic data which confirms the middle class is getting crushed under Obama. Secondly, the NRA and Indiana seem determined to set back the cause of gun rights.

Issue One: The surest way to determine what chance a president has at being re-elected is to ask the question Reagan made famous: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Obama desperately needs to hope no one asks that. Why? How about these numbers:

● Unemployment: At 8.2%, unemployment is at one of its highest points in decades. In May, 12.7 million Americans were officially unemployed, with another 24 million unofficially unemployed or underemployed. Five million people have been officially unemployed for more than two years now.

● Falling Incomes: Since 2007, the median income for all American families has fallen 7.7%.

● Inflation: Inflation is eating away at spending power. A dollar today is only worth 32 cents of what it was worth in 1979. That means inflation has eaten 68% of the value of the dollar in 33 years. When you factor in wage increases, the middle class already took a 28% pay cut between 1979 and when Obama took office (the poor took a 50% pay cut). Official inflation under Obama has been minor, but that’s a fake number. Gas prices are up 83% and meat is up 24%, and real inflation is estimated at around 12%. Factor in the falling wages of 7.7% with the pay-cut of inflation at 12%, and you have a huge pay cut being taken year after year.

● Falling Net Worth: Since 2007, the median net worth of American families has fallen by 38.8% from $126,400 to $77,300. This is largely (but not entirely) the result of falling housing prices. In the West, this decline was 55%.

This tells us that the American public is taking a beating. Their savings have been cut by a third, their incomes are falling (those that are even employed), and inflation is eating away at all of it. So much for being better off today than anyone was four years ago. The exception, of course, is Club Fed which increased its spending 714% since 1979 and 33% since Obama took office.

Issue Two: Indiana has passed a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association which allows residents to use deadly force against government employees, including law enforcement officers, who “unlawfully” enter their homes. Mitch Daniels signed this in March.

This is a HORRIBLE idea!

First of all, let me ask why we need this? Is there a problem with cops attacking people in their homes in Indiana? If not, then there’s no reason for this. Secondly, has anyone asked what this will cause? How do you decide if the police are there unlawfully? Doesn’t this give people a false belief that they have a right to shoot at the cops no matter why the police are there? This is a stupid bill which will get police (and civilians) killed. And there is no need for this bill because it doesn’t stop any real problem.

This is a classic example of the stupidity of activists. Some jerkoff at the NRA decided this would be a good idea for whatever reason and the other jerkoffs talked themselves into it without every stopping to ask someone with common sense if this was a good idea. By pushing this, the NRA has put the “responsible” gun lobby on the side of fringe politics and irresponsible laws. This is, in fact, the very type of law which turns people off the cause being promoted. This is Planned Parenthood defending partial-birth abortion or gay marriage activists suing churches to force them to perform gay marriages. This is stupid. This is the kind of bill guaranteed to bring a backlash. And this is yet another reason I won’t support the NRA despite firmly believing in the Second Amendment.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Lessons From Oslo. . .

As is often the case, a tragedy provides us with various lessons to consider. Some good, some bad, some obvious, some not. Sadly, for political reasons, many of these lessons will be ignored and others will be wrongly interpreted. But we aren’t afraid of the truth. So let’s talk about the Norway killings and see what lessons we should draw from this tragedy.

Lesson No. 1: Guns Control Does Not Work

Gun ownership in Norway is heavily regulated, though you will hear the contrary from the MSM. Automatic weapons are completely banned as are most large caliber pistols. To acquire a gun, you must have a clean police record and you must demonstrate a use for it. This can include hunting or sport shooting. However, you may only own one gun in each caliber in which you compete. To own a handgun, you must be 21. To own a shotgun, you must be 18. The police may inspect your guns in your home at any time and the amount of ammunition you may own is limited.

None of this stopped the Oslo killer because laws do not stop people who intend to break them.

Lesson No. 2: Guns Save Lives

It took the police 90 minutes to respond from the moment the shooting began. In that time, the Oslo killer methodically killed 85 people (19 more were wounded). He shot them with an MSM-described "machine gun" (banned in Norway if true) and then walked around shooting the fallen in the head with a shotgun. Clearly, he had to reload many times and knew he was in no danger the entire time.

If anyone at this camp had been armed, they could have stopped him almost immediately -- especially seeing as how he surrendered the moment police arrived. The fact the public was disarmed by its government put them at his mercy and needlessly cost 70+ people their lives.

Lesson No. 3: Guns Do Not Cause Crime

The possession of a gun did not motivate this killer, nor did it cause his crime. His beliefs about the collapse of society motivated this crime. And if he hadn't used a gun, he would have used something else -- like the explosives he used on the government buildings.

There are 250 million guns in the United States. Think about it. If guns “caused” crimes, then there would 250 million murders a year. Even if only one in ten people fell under the evil spell of these guns, we would still be dealing with 25 million murders a year. Even one percent means 2.5 million. But less than 10,000 people are killed annually in the United States by guns. That works out to less than 0.004% of guns being used to kill someone. . . 40 out of every million. Guns do not cause crime.

Lesson No. 4: Leftists Are Biased

It is fascinating that the first instinct of leftists when there is a terrorist attack is to tell everyone not to assume the terrorism was the result of Islamic terror groups. “Stay calm, don’t jump to conclusions,” we are told, even after we learn the perpetrators are Muslims. Yet, this time, once we heard the killer was white, the MSM immediately assumed he was a right-winger.... just as they did with the left-winger who shot up the Holocaust museum and the left-winger who shot Giffords. This time they were apparently right, every other time they’ve been wrong.

Moreover, the difference in treatment is stunning. With the left wingers, the media (1) assumes they are right wingers, and (2) dismisses evidence to the contrary, before (3) reluctantly reporting the “alleged evidence” they are leftists after much soul searching about evil right wingers, (4) immediately before switching to the “crazy loner, not really ideologically driven” talking points. They also keep referring to them as “alleged” long after it's clear they're guilty.

This time, the media jumped on the idea that he is a right winger the moment they heard he wasn't a Muslim. They immediately launched into trying to find every website he's ever visited to toss blame their way (some leftist have even blamed Palin). They've also made no pretense of calling him "alleged", nor have they suggested he's a crazed loner.

What’s more, compare his treatment to Muslim killer Maj. Nidal Hasan? LONG after all the evidence came in that Hasan attacked and killed American soldiers in the name of Islam, the administration and their MSM buddies kept saying “alleged killer” and claimed they had no idea what motivated him. Yet this Oslo killer isn’t even in handcuffs and the same people are declaring his motives solved?

Lesson No. 5: The Wrong Lessons Will Be Draw

Naturally, the wrong lessons will be drawn.

Crazy people are crazy. By definition, they do crazy things. You cannot stop them because they are unpredictable. Restricting the rights and freedoms of hundreds of millions of innocent people in an impossible effort to stop the next nutjob is an obscenity. It also will only encourage the next nutjob to seek their own moment of fame. Any attempt to pass laws "to prevent this from happening again" is sheer, cynical political opportunism.

What’s more, it is a mistake to draw a comparison between Islamic terrorists and this idiot. This guy was crazy. He had one arrow to fire and he's done that. His day is done. But Islamic terrorists like al Qaeda are not crazy. They may be goat-molesting retards, but they are not crazy. They are at war. Their goal is a very rational one: to damage and destabilize the West so that it withdraws from territories they have claimed and that it becomes unwilling to fight back when they try to spread Islam across the world. To dismiss them as akin to this idiot would be like dismissing the first wave of German soldiers in Poland in 1939 as nothing more than rowdy tourists.

Lesson No. 6: Our Media Culture Is Corrupt

Finally, our media culture is corrupt. No sooner were huge photos of this shooter spread across the newspapers of the world and radio and television started spouting his name than crackhead Amy Winehouse died. Suddenly, a woman who was dead for years but just hadn't stopped moving until yesterday became the world's most important story.

Our media is sick.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Next Obama Scandal: “Gun Walking”

Operation Fast and Furious was an idiotic attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to get proof that Mexican drug cartels are buying guns from American gun shops. This reckless operation had no chance of success and it got people killed, including American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. What's more, it has all the hallmarks of being politically motivated and is likely to reach into the White House.



Starting in 2009, the ATF, part of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, got cooperative Phoenix-area gun shops to sell guns illegally to Mexicans. Rather than arrest these buyers, as they would have done in the past, the ATF instructed its agents to turn a blind eye to the sales. This has been called “gun walking” because they let these guns walk out the door. The ATF hoped the guns would be recovered from Mexican crime scenes, which they believed would let them build conspiracy cases against Mexican drug cartels. It didn’t. In fact, it couldn't because the entire concept is flawed. Consider this:

1. By telling the gun shops to knowingly sell the guns illegally, the agency itself made it possible for the guns to reach Mexico. Thus, this operation cannot stand as proof that American gun shops are selling to Mexicans because it was the ATF itself that made this possible and there is no evidence that any non-cooperating gun shops made similar sales.



2. Secondly, there’s no way to connect the drug cartels to the gun sales because the ATF didn’t keep track of the guns. In other words, even if cartel members used these guns in Mexico, there’s no way to trace the gun from the purchase to the cartel. And if the ATF's plan was just to assume the connection (something that is not permissible in a court of law) then why even bother releasing the guns?

Thus, even if the operation worked perfectly, it still could not have achieved the ATF's goals.



But more importantly, what was the cost of this stupidity? Republicans Rep. Daryl Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley just issued a 51 page report damning Operation Fast and Furious. From the start, this operation was criticized by experienced ATF agents as “reckless.” Said Grassley: “Both line agents and gun dealers who co-operated with the ATF repeatedly expressed concerns [about the operation]. . . but ATF supervisors did not heed those warnings. Instead, they told agents to follow orders because this was sanctioned from above.” And when ATF bosses were told this could result in people getting killed, they responded: “if you are going to make an omelet, you need to scramble some eggs.” In other words, they didn’t care. Apparently, they even threatened to fire or punish agents who complained.



It is unknown how many crimes these guns were used to commit because the ATF had no way to monitor what happened to the guns. But before the operation was stopped, 1,730 guns were allowed to disappear onto the black market, including hundreds of AK-47s and sniper rifles. One of those AK-47s was later used to kill Board Patrol Agent Brian Terry. And when he was killed, the ATF embarked on a cover up. William Newell, the special agent in charge of the operation, ordered the arrest of 20 of the minor gun buyers and then declared the operation a success even though nothing was ever linked to a single senior cartel member. When he was asked if the guns the ATF had let disappear were deliberately allowed to end up in the hands of criminals, he lied: “Hell no!”



So what you have here is a government agency that embarked on a policy that could not achieve the goals for which it was planned, which endangered thousands of American and Mexican lives, and which covered up the mess it created. If that’s not an argument for reining in the government, then nothing is.



Naturally, Obama has denied any knowledge of the operation and I’m sure Eric Holder will too. There is speculation that acting ATF director Kenneth Melson will be made the scapegoat here. But this is not the kind of operation that happens without higher up approval. In fact, one ATF agent has stated that this operation was cleared by the State Department, i.e. Hillary Clinton (who "coincidentally" came to the border to decry American guns right before this operation started).



To dodge this scandal, the Democrats are spinning this as the fault of the gun lobby for blocking the appointment of Obama’s choice to run the ATF -- that's the same Democrats who had a 60 seat majority but didn't confirm the guy. They also are trying to claim this started in 2006, which is true of the overall operation but not of the gun walking -- which only started in 2009 apparently after the approval of State. The ATF is trying to spin this as the result of the ATF not having enough personnel to monitor the guns, but that begs the question why they even started the operation.



In fact, why would they do this at all? The ATF says they wanted to get a better grasp on how cartels work, but that kind of knowledge is already available and this wouldn’t have helped them in any event. The real goal, in my opinion, was to create data to prove what Obama/Hillary/Holder were all arguing: that gun control is needed because American gun shops are arming Mexican drug cartels. That argument wasn’t working because everyone knows better. As I pointed out at the time, it’s silly to think Mexican cartels were buying guns from American gun shops when they have co-opted whole departments of the Mexican police and whole military units -- they could easily get better hardware out of Mexican armories. BUT. . . if American guns with serial numbers known to the ATF could suddenly be traced to a significant portion of murders in Mexico, then Obama/Clinton/Holder would have a new argument to aid them in their gun control attempts.



It strikes me this is a prime example of politicians abusing law enforcement to generate a controversy to help them score political points. People died so Team Obama could score those points. This is shameful and needs to be investigated.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gun Control And Swiss Suicides

Most liberals tell us they don’t hate guns, and they have no plans to confiscate yours. They just want to stop the “destructive effects” of guns, by which they mean “gun crime.” But is that true? What just happened in Switzerland says it isn’t.

Switzerland has a lengthy gun tradition. For at least 800 years now, the Swiss have drafted virtually every able-bodied male into the army. As part of their service, they’ve kept their weapons at home. And when they left the service, they were allowed to keep their weapons. Thus, it’s not uncommon for Swiss families to have rifles, pistols, and even fully automatic machine guns in their homes. Current estimates say there are two million guns in Switzerland, a land of only eight million people.

Since we “know” guns cause crime, Switzerland must be a killing zone, right? Actually no. Gun crime in Switzerland is virtually nonexistent. It’s so low they don’t even bother keeping official statistics on gun crime. It is, in fact, lower than the gun crime rate in Japan, which absolutely bans guns. Switzerland ranks as the fourth safest country in the world and its violent crime rate is 1/100th that of England.

That means Switzerland must have strong gun control laws, right? Actually, no. Gun sales by the Swiss government are registered. BUT gun sales from one individual to another are regulated only in five of the twenty-six cantons. Retail gun dealers do not keep records of over-the-counter transactions, nor are such transactions reported to the government. So why do groups like the Brady Campaign claim the Swiss are heavily regulated? Because Switzerland proves that (1) the presence of guns does not cause crime and (2) the absence of gun control does not cause crime.

Despite the almost nonexistence of any gun harm in Switzerland, an international coalition of leftist groups recently tried to pass a law to take guns away from Swiss homes and require they be kept in armories. Sanity prevailed and the initiative lost: 20 of 26 cantons rejected the initiative, as did 56.3% of the population (it had to be approved both by the people and the cantons to pass).

So what was the gun groups’ ostensible reason for pushing this imitative? Gun suicides. According to these groups, Switzerland has the highest level of gun suicides in Europe. But is that a legitimate claim? Consider this.

1. Switzerland’s suicide rate is not appreciably higher than the rest of Western Europe, and is significantly lower than Eastern Europe. So there’s no logical reason to think guns contribute to Switzerland’s suicide rate.

2. Nor is gun suicide a serious problem. Switzerland has about 1,500 suicides each year, with about 340 (23%) of those involving guns. But this represents only 0.00425% of the population.

3. Suicide is acceptable in Switzerland. Indeed, Switzerland has become infamous for “suicide tourism” because you have a right to assisted suicide in Switzerland if you are “suffering from an illness that inevitably leads to death, or from an unacceptable disability.” In other words, you don’t even need to be suffering yet, when you decide to off yourself. Several people have used this law to kill themselves long before they began displaying symptoms of diseases. So logically, if there’s nothing wrong with committing suicide at the nearest suicide booth, then why is it suddenly a crisis when guns are used?

This is the real issue. Gun control groups have created a pretext. That have seized upon something they would otherwise consider acceptable when guns aren’t involved and they’ve spun this into a crisis that requires almost every household in Switzerland to hand in their guns, even though this "crisis" involves only 340 people a year, i.e. less than 0.00425% of the population -- 1 out of every 25,000 people (three people per NFL stadium). And to make this number sound large, they’ve compared it against other countries in a way that makes it sound large, even though overall suicide rates in Western Europe are fairly similar. . . and the slight increases in Switzerland and Denmark can be accounted for by assisted suicide.

What this tell us, is that there is a real dishonesty among the gun control crowd, the same dishonesty that has them lying about the level of gun control in Switzerland because Switzerland puts the lie to all of their claims. And what they're trying to do with this initiative is to eliminate the world's most obvious example that guns don't kill people, liberal permissive culture kills people.

Finally, let me point out the other side of the equation which the gun groups conveniently ignore. Do you really think Switzerland is the fourth safest country in the world by accident? Or do you think the possession of these weapons by everyone has a role in that? And if that’s the case, ask yourself two questions: (1) how many of those 340 suicides will actually be stopped by this, and (2) how many of those 8 million people will die as victims of crime once they’re disarmed?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...