Quote of the Day – NGAC (9/16/2012)

Criminals are interested in getting money and goods, not in killing people.  2/3 of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals.

National Gun Victims Action Council – Gun Fact #2: If Only The Criminals Had Guns, U.S. Gun Homicides Would Plummet.

September 14, 2012


[First off, criminals are only interested in money and goods unless they aren’t.

Secondly NGAC is saying is it is better to be a victim than to defend yourself.  Because if you defend yourself effectively you will be committing a gun homicide.  Because in their world, there is no such thing as justifiable homicide.

They’re right, criminals don’t like having armed victims, it makes their chosen profession dangerous.  Our opponents can only argue that it’s better to be a victim, raped, beaten, and broke in an alley than standing over their cooling dead body.

Why is it our opponents are so desperate in seeing honest people criminalized, victimized, and otherwise abused by the criminal elements?

As I have said before our opponents are not working to better the safety of the law-abiding but are actively working to protect the criminal element.  They are the equivalent of OSHA for violent criminals.

Who bothers to listen to these fools anymore? -B]

h/t Uncle.

Hey Hey Kids! It’s that time of year again!

Lets play finish the article!  Here’s the headline:

University of Idaho student in stable condition after fall from roof

No cheating first we need to collect ideas of what happened.

First up it’s a student so my immediate guess is this individual was at a Fraternity or Sorority when this incident occurred.  Write down if you agree or disagree, the answer follows.

… after falling from the roof of his fraternity shortly after midnight Wednesday morning. 

I am shocked, I say shocked that an upstanding young student from the Greek system would find himself in such a position.  It’s not like this thing hasn’t happened before.  As a note, there was an individual that fell at WSU August 23rd, though it was just a party house not associated with the Greek system.

Next wild ass guess, though I will admit it’s not really that wild… Alcohol was a factor in the accident!  What say you gentle reader, do you think this individual was sober when he decided to venture across the top of his humble abode?

… but there was also alcohol involved,” said Moscow Police Chief David Duke. 

[sarcasm]Damn, I was really thinking he was stone cold sober![/sarcasm]

How sad is it that I can just read the headline and know exactly what happened like a standard write-up with fill in the blanks.  The only difference in the name of the individual, frat house, school, and responding agency.

Why would I bring this all up though?  Well remember though that these individuals are not the majority of students and yet they are the shining examples used by the anti-rights cultists that concealed carry shouldn’t be allowed on campus.  Unsurprisingly though their examples are often criminals as well.  Not to mention the criminal incidents that don’t get reported by the media, some so horrible  they should issue hunting tags for the animals who did it.  All the while the school looks the other way or attempts to blame the victim (seriously).  (As a FYI, that references two different independent incidents believe it or not.)  WSU doesn’t like the black eye these types of events bring and does anything it can to hide it.

I find it interesting though that the example group our opponents use against college carry often find themselves in situations that would otherwise preclude them from carrying.  Drunk, underage, drug use, etc.  Yet our opponents use them as their example to disarm others who merely go to class and go home.  Ensuring that they can remain easy victims for the predators they oh so clearly support.

As a side note, we often talk about self-defense and avoiding risky situations.  Going into Greek row, more specifically attending any kind of party there I consider high risk, especially for the fairer sex.  It’s not the way it should be, but it’s the way it is.  Know that it’s high risk and act accordingly, preferably just avoid the damn thing.

Stage 2 – Anger

It appears that many of our opponents are moving on from denial to anger.  Via Gun Free Zone comes this example:

image via Gun Free Zone

 Slowly more and more of our opponents are going to leave the realm of denial and move toward anger.  Even Sebastian is noting that they are beginning to “behave like angry children”.

On Today

Initially I wasn’t going to put up a post regarding today.  Then I went over to Weer’d’s place and read his post.  I was about to write a comment but instead I realized it was growing into a post.  Here’s what I wrote before I pulled the plug.

I haven’t forgotten, I may or may not put up a post this year.

Yesterday I was embracing the suck and someone was all too unhappy about it. You see our Federal overlords have declared everyone and their mother suspected terrorists for things as innocuous as going about their daily business.  Things such as using cash for a transaction.

I do remember that day.  I remember it quite well.  I remember staring at the TV in disbelief as I watched what was happening live as I prepared to go to school.  I remember the freedom and liberty I had prior to that day.  I also remember hour our government reacted.  They have reacted to the point where they label me with the same title as those monsters.  By god if they’re going to stick me with that title, I am going to embrace the suck and drag the meaning of that word right straight down.

Thanks to the behavior of our modern government, in 2001 terrorists were responsible for that atrocious act.  In 2012, the best that can be said is it was done by evil.  By monsters who despise and hate us.  The title of terrorist no longer fits because according to our overlords, those who fight these monsters are terrorists as well.

Every year on this day I used to be angry at just those who attacked us.  Angry at those who took the lives of so many innocent people.

As the years progressed though I found my anger including others.  While I am still mainly angry at the men who started this snow ball, I am just as angry at the American politicians for exploiting this tragedy for a power grab.  At the same time I am angry because the American people have been complacent with it.

The biggest difference for the majority of America between now and September 10th, 2001 is that we have considerably less freedom now than we did then.  Some would argue that “it was necessary” and it keeps us safe.  The only thing is, it doesn’t do anything to actually make you safe, it just makes a bunch of sheep feel safe.

Today is a day of mourning.  Mourning for not only those we lost, but an ideology that is slowly being destroyed, all in the name of the “War on Terrorism.”  Most of the things on the above list are things that I do as well as many of my friends.  Hell, you can go through all the flyers for different types of flyer’s here.

When you start labeling normal behavior as a “potential terrorist action” why don’t you just admit that you think anyone who isn’t just a good little sheep a terrorist that needs to be put down?

I would further like to note, the mere fact I’m willing to voice this dissenting opinion probably gets me labeled a terrorist as well.  See, they don’t outlaw speech anymore, they just tell you what you said makes you either a racist or a terrorist.  Isn’t all this freedom we have nice?  Never mind that the government actually fits the real definition of the word terrorist.

*I think I need to get one of these T-Shirts to wear on September 11th every year from now on.

Zero Tolerance is Really Zero Brains

Via A Girl comes this wonderful bit of idiocy.

A Nebraska preschool is asking a three-year-old deaf boy to change his name because it violates the school board’s weapons policy.

Hunter Spanjer signs his first name by making what looks like shooting gestures with both hands. He crosses his fingers when he does it – a modification to show it’s his proper name.

Think about that.  They are so intolerant of people and cultures they are insisting that a deaf child change his name.  This is what our opponents are like.  They don’t hate guns, they hate us.  They hate our culture, they to destroy it.

Speaking of zero brains was this wonderful individual on twitter today:

image

 

Remember my rant yesterday?  Yup, he was another delusional individual of from that bunch.  How delusional?  You’ll be glad to know that JayG does not have a series on defensive gun uses.  Evidently none of those incidents were justified use of a firearm.  (Remember read bottom up)

image

Note that bottom tweet links to JayG’s DGC.  I then also link to this story about a man defending a police officer with a firearm.  To which he has no reply and starts stating how he wants to make all guns disappear.  Because some how that’s going to stop violent criminals from being violent?

I ask again, why are these people so insistent on disarming and preventing citizens from obtaining arms?  It’s like they need us disarmed so they can more effectively redistribute our wealth without our consent.

I keep trying to restrain this comment but I can’t any more.  After Amy’s comment I think it makes perfect sense.

The reason Beta Males support gun control is because the only way they can effectively attempt to reproduce is by means that would usually result in a case of lead poisoning.

I state the above because often anti-gunners talk as if it is going to be me shooting them.  That I am going to shoot them at any point.  As I have said though, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

If I ever do kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.

The solution to not getting shot by law abiding citizens is simple.  Don’t try and victimize them.  Don’t steal, wrong, defraud, assault, rape, or otherwise attempt to do harm me or my family and my gun is going to stay right in it’s holster where it belongs.  Get it?!

The real kicker though is this bit of PSH:

image

Why I Get Angry…

Recently I had an individual engage me in debate on twitter and he couldn’t understand why I felt like I was being victimized for him saying firearms should be taken from law-abiding citizens.

Today I stumbled across something that put it oh so well. (Emphasis mine).

There is a perception that a gun will turn a sane man, or woman, into a crazed, trigger-happy criminal, or that a gun is a gross over-reaction to the threat of rape. I contend that the gun is a great equalizer. Why do only criminals, police and nut-cases get to have guns? Do we, the potential victims, not get access to these same implements, so that we might properly defend ourselves? In fact, might we have these tools so we no longer have to be victims? Maybe we can take some action in preserving our own safety instead of just staying in well-lit areas and hoping for the best.

The other side of this debate doesn’t seem to understand that they are forcing potential victims to have to be complicit in their own attack.  The arguments are “for the greater good”, often because they think that crime merely exists because of the firearm.  First it assumes that the limitation on access will have an effect on criminal access to arms.  That’s impossible and history in both England and Australia both have proven that. Also it ignores the truth about collective punishment and responsibility.

Further, how do you effectively ban something that can be made from simple materials available at Home Depot and soon will not need much more than the ability to hit print?  What effect does gun control accomplish other than provide methods to prevent the law-abiding from carrying defensive arms?

Honestly, those who support gun control, answer the question, criminals and crazy people can obtain a weapon if they so feel like it, what good do gun laws do?  If someone is intent on killing someone else, they have numerous weapons to substitute even if they cannot get a firearm.  I also love how some people call for “reasonable restrictions on firearms” and then compare it to cars as if they are some how more regulated.

So, let me get this straight:

I could continue but why bother?  The fact is there is law after law that does nothing to stop criminals, but does everything possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining effective arms for their own defense.  The idea that cars are some how more regulated than firearms is false.  While they are “registered” that is done as a tax measure as the vehicle is considered titled property.  Further obtaining a license is simple and easy and it is recognized in all 50 states.  I am required by law to muffle my vehicle, however the law prevents me from muffling my firearms.  My license is recognized in all 50 states without question while my CPL is not.  My vehicle is required to meet a minimum standard of safety requirements, read headlights, tail lights, blinkers, seat belts, but the remainder of the car can be left up to my imagination.  Further if I buy an old car frame, some of the safety requirements are lifted.

The fact is, guns are extremely heavily regulated and it is the law-abiding who is on the short end of the stick.  It is the law-abiding who’s access is restricted.  Think I’m pulling your leg?  Let’s as some members of a gang in Chicago (h/t Sebastian).

Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

“You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

Consider that, with my comments from above.  Then consider how hard it is for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm within the City of Chicago, even post Heller and McDonald.

You can not look at these facts and then tell me with a straight face that gun control has anything to do with “public safety”.  The public is in no way safer disarmed while the criminals are still able to obtain weapons.  You cannot stop them.

So yes, when you go off spouting your mouth about how gun control would help the world, yes I take it personally and yes I will call you on it.  Because the day may come where my wife, my daughter, my son, any of my friends, and lastly even myself may have to call upon my firearm to defend ourselves or our families.  And no one has any business telling me, my family, or my friends what tools we should or shouldn’t be using to defend ourselves.  Firearms and this community do something no other tool or group can.

Most importantly, the act of shooting and owning a gun has a profound impact on the way most women see themselves and the world around them. Shooting a gun is empowering, energizing, stress-relieving and confidence-building. In my experience, women who shoot walk taller and apologize less. They are also sensitive, caring and protective of their loved ones. Women who carry guns have already decided that their lives and their bodies are valuable enough to protect.

To which Mom With A Gun adds the following:

To this I would add only that the above is doubly true if you’ve already been a victim of rape or other violence and you’re trying to reclaim your sense of empowerment, energy, confidence and competence. For twenty years after I was raped, I became meek, submissive, withdrawn, terrified. The worst thing my rapist took from me on that terrible July afternoon was my sense that I was worth defending, that I was worth fighting for. That I was worth the space I took up in the world. That I was anything other than prey.

To which we then look at the comments made by A Girl about this community and the start contrast to our opponents.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance…

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.

Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.

This is where I belong.

These are my people.

So yes I take it personal, yes I get angry, and yes the mere suggestion is an insult and a disgrace to humanity.  Only a cold-blooded animal would wish real victims to continue suffering after an attack.  We see how each side of this debate treats victims of violence.  One wants to rebuild them, make them stronger, and faster, because we have the technology.  The other side would rather bury their heads in the sand and use the force of government to make everyone else do it too.

*For those who don’t know, a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and pistol grip are actually safety features.

  • A barrel shroud protects the user from burns from the hot metal of the barrel.
  • The collapsible stock allows the weapon to be easily modified to properly fit the shooter, especially handy when you regularly deal with new shooters of different sizes.  The wrong size can result in injury to the face and shoulders.
  • The pistol grip allows disabled shooters to more easily and effectively hold and use a weapon and depending on the disability prevents injury.

A Compare and Contrast Exercise

Lets look at exhibit A:

The results?  15 rounds, 9 innocent bystanders wounded.

Exhibit B:

Result, no innocent bystanders shot, 2 perps wounded and found in the hospital.

So can someone please explain to me again why concealed carriers are so dangerous?  Especially given the following information:

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

I really should spend some time aggregating the stats for the number of innocent people shot by officers during an engagement versus the number of innocents shot by a concealed carrier while defending themselves.  I hate spending my time doing that because I already know the answer and I know there was a study on it, my Google fu just can’t find it again.  I have a feeling though it may be buried and I will probably end up doing it.

Intrepid readers, if you find it, please let me know!

Quote of the Day – @JeremyAllan (8/24/2012)

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I want her disarmed, yep. I don’t want her to be prey.

@JeremyAllanTweet
August 24, 2012


[Those two statements are mutually exclusive and I tried multiple analogies.  He also couldn’t understand how group punishment wouldn’t serve any purpose and is unfair.

That “conversation” on twitter was long and drawn out in the end three things were blatantly obvious.

First he suffers from Peterson Syndrome.  He would gladly have a higher overall crime rate for fewer “gun deaths”.

Second he cannot comprehend that disarming the law-abiding public makes them prey.  To most illustrate this point here was his final tweets:

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I truly hope you’re never in a position where you would feel the need to use your guns for defense.

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc Because I don’t wish you or any of your loved ones harm. The opposite. Rather, prosperity.

Yet he admits he would prefer my wife who has a physical disability to be disarmed unable to effectively defend herself.  How can you be prosperous when you’re dead because you weren’t able to effectively defend yourself?

This also completely ignores the analogy I made for group punishment for alcohol and holding everyone who drinks responsible for the actions of others.  He dodged the question at first.  Then when he came back around, he said he would give it up if the law told him to.  Except history says that prohibition doesn’t work and any attempts to outlaw “insert noun here” always fail.  His solution was to say that didn’t matter and my argument was invalid.

Lastly he lives in a world of complete denial.  How warped is his denial, I linked to the Harvard study I talked about yesterday.  This was his response:

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc @dthurstonHarvard is not infallible. This is propaganda.

When presented with facts and evidence, that has been peer-reviewed mind you, his response is to dismiss it as propaganda.  When someone is so ready and willing to dismiss any facts brought before them without a second thought what else is there?

I will add that throughout that entire debate, Linoge, Miguel, and I were the only ones backing our statements with examples and evidence.

All they offered was that guns should be banned and that would solve the problem.  What they don’t realize is that option has been examined, and the conclusions have been proven false, and the adults in the room have moved on in the conversation.  Their solution is to bring new people to the debate to scream for the same old thing as if some how doing it again, this time only harder will work.

I have some bad news to our opponents though.  No matter how badly you outlaw guns, people will have them.  Especially when it’s as easy as pressing the print button.  The debate is over, we’re merely still here because you’re currently grieving. -B]