The Folly of Gun Control and Gun Controllers

Editor's note: I'm reposting this, because the liberal anti-gun crowd still can't get their facts straight.I wrote this piece in response to a column by Michael Fitzgerald, of the Stockton Record, late in Oct '15. I responded with a long letter to the Editor, which, to their credit, they published almost in its entirety. (Like I said, it was long!) Afterwards, there were a spate of shootings which made the national news, and I felt it might be inappropriate to respond, in the light of unfolding events. For those of you who just read The Ghouls of Gun Control, this is the columnist and the column that I was referring to. This last draft contained a lot of material I felt wouldn't fit in the letter.


Michael Fitzgerald, a columnist for my local dead tree paper, decided that my fair city has too many guns. In reality, what he wants to eliminate is too many shootings. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know the difference.

You can't hardly blame him. Well, yes you can. He's regurgitating statistics that he got from the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence. Getting reliable and accurate statistics from them is like getting information from our last Commander-in-Chief on keeping your doctor if you liked your doctor. He quotes the "reality" that

"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense..."

So I read that and immediately I asked myself, where did they get that number from? A curiosity apparently not shared by our columnist, so I Googled it, and the top two entries were one from the Brady organization and the second was from the NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action.

It listed the source of the study, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998, and then proceeded to list the flaws of that study. This analysis was in 2001. For upwards to seventeen years, Brady has been repeating the results of this extremely flawed study, because it knows that columnists like Fitzgerald will accept it without question and then spread the lies even farther. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the study which "proves" 'A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used...yada yada yada", except in all but 14.2% of the subject of the study, they were shot with some other gun!

"only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred."

Let me break that down for you. Let's say you are a drug dealing gang banger and you keep a gun in your house for protection. Which is probably pretty smart, since all your other drug dealing, gang banger associates have guns and would shoot you in a New York minute if there was a buck in it for them. So, if you leave your house and get killed by someone else's gun, outside your house, the study says, See? He kept a gun in the house and he got shot! Mind you, the gun you kept in the house didn't kill you, but it counts in our study because...science!

And what's a good anti-gun diatribe without a little something to tug the heart strings? Fitzgerald recounts the 1989 Cleveland schoolyard "massacre". Because nothing like that has happened here in the last quarter century or so, but...science! A little background on the Cleveland school shooting, in case you don't remember back that far. A loser named Patrick Purdy, whom the New York Times described as having an "extensive criminal history", killed five children between the ages of six and nine, and wounded thirty others.

He had a record of at least five arrests in California, dating to 1980.

A psych evaluation for his probation report after his last arrest and incarceration in 1987 "described him as a danger to himself and others". Arrested numerous times, attempted suicide twice, one might suggest that the criminal justice and public health system failed this man. One other lesser known detail of his attack, he prepared a Molotov cocktail, a gasoline bomb, and blew up his car before he started his shooting spree. Which not only does not sound like the mark of a sane man to me, but it also points out his disregard of laws restricting the use of explosive devices. Imagine for a brief moment, you have a person this crazy, without a firearm in sight, who creates not one but a half a dozen firebombs and uses them to assault an elementary school.

Purdy was a mentally ill criminal. His last handgun purchase was subject to a 15 day "cooling off" period, which ended three days before the shooting. Guess that didn't work, either.

Fitzgerald gratuitously tells the tragic story of a young man who accidentally shoots himself fatally, cleaning his gun while his mother watched. Although this is both heart breaking and avoidable, this death would not have been eliminated by any of the proposed gun control laws being pushed today, so why bring it up? Because most gun control advocated today cannot be sold logically, it must tug the heart strings.

For example, who among us is untouched by the death of a child? So young, with their entire lives before them! So a few years back, there was a study compiled of the deaths of "children" killed by guns. Because when we hear about things like that, we tend to think "Sandy Hook" or "Cleveland school". Only this study was of "children" up to the age of twenty three! The highest percentage of deaths was among inner city gangs, 17-23, who were involved in all sorts of criminal activity and not the sort to abide by the law just for the sake of it. But the dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd can be seen in the way they pad their statistics, because if the numbers are not high enough, it will not affect you as emotionally.

Everyone who is killed by a gun in America is fair game for their statistics. People who use a gun in self defense, police officers in the line of duty, every justified use of deadly force is considered a "victim" of gun violence. Dana Loesch points out in her book, one group reciting the names of "victims" of gun violence, named Tamerlan Tsarnaev. You remember him? After he and his brother set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing men, women, and children and tearing their bodies limb from limb, he got into a shootout with police. Most of America didn't lose any sleep over it. Brady and their brethren drew another chalk outline around another victim, and if we only have "common sense gun laws" we could eliminate these senseless deaths. Don't worry. I'm sure Michael Brown of Ferguson MO is on one of their lists, too!

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a gun control measure for the 2016 ballot. Newsom’s politically courageous measure would ban clips (sic) that hold more than 10 rounds.

I'm sure he meant "magazines". There is a difference, though I suspect much of Mr. Fitzgerald's knowledge of guns comes from Hollywood rather than hands on experience. There may be one slight hitch in this part of Newsom's "politically courageous measure" here in California. It's already been law since January of 2000. We affectionately call it California Penal Code Section 32310:

32310. (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) For purposes of this section, "manufacturing" includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

So, we have a journalist quoting studies that have been debunked for fourteen years impressed with someone who apparently hasn't got a clue to what current law actually states, and these guys are going to fix it for us? Please!

Patrick Purdy, the Aurora theater shooter and the Boston Marathon bombers all broke multiple laws in constructing, placing and detonating bombs aside from their gun crimes. Yet if anyone were to come up to you and say, "All we need are 'common sense' bomb laws", you might look at them as if they were insane. We already have "common sense bomb laws" on the books which need to be enforced when violated by evil or mentally ill individuals. BTW, that's the way that some Second Amendment advocates and those who actually know the issues, look at you when you propose something yet again that will not work, will not deter crime or criminals or the mentally ill, but you feel you "have to do something" about these horrific crimes. Or at least, that's what the politicians say.

Despite the media coverage, school shootings are actually decreasing. Homicides are decreasing. Accidental shootings are decreasing. The sensational coverage is increasing.

For liberal politicians, gun control is the gift that keeps on giving. They can pass legislation that they know will not decrease crime or violence one whit, in fact may even make the problem worse by disarming the law abiding, take credit for "doing something" and still have an issue they can run on year after year. 

Bottom line, whenever someone tells you they want "common sense" gun laws, ask them specifically what the law would ban and how specifically that law would have prevented the latest in a long line of tragedies exploited by the Ghouls of Gun Control?

Originally published 12/14/15

Freedom's Safest Place

"Service"

I just saw this ad. Wasn't sure who sponsored it up until almost the very end. But it was very powerful. I wanted to share the message with you.

Identity Theft and the Second Amendment

There's been a lot of identity theft in the news. Most of us recall what happened at Target, and now it's happened again. Big time.  Home Depot has been hacked. People who made purchases as far back as last April could have been affected. I buy a lot of stuff at Home Depot.

A lot.

For both home and work, and it's all on little plastic cards. But, contrary to my nature, I'm not that worried about it. Let me tell you why.

I had a false alarm about a month ago. I thought my identity had been stolen. I came home one Friday night to a couple of very strange pieces of mail, which at least suggested that my identity might have been stolen and perhaps, a number of accounts fraudulently opened in my name. And because it was a Friday night, I knew I wasn't going to be able to do anything at all about it until Monday.

So, I spent a couple of days stewing over what I would do, what the consequences might be, and remembering tales of people who struggled for years to restore their good credit.  I would also think back to times I had considered protection against identity theft, figured it might not be worth the money, and kicking myself for not having done it sooner.

When I made a few calls and discovered Monday that it was truly a false alarm, I was relieved, but now, that ten dollars a month for fraud protection was looking like a pretty good deal.
I also recalled that I was eligible for a discount through my membership with the NRA. They'd sent me a letter, which I filed away to look at...later. Okay, now it's later.

And that's what brings me to the purpose of this post. If you are not currently using some form of credit monitoring service, you might want to reconsider. And if you are not currently a member of the NRA, you might want to join. Now.

A one year membership in the NRA, typically $35, can be obtained for $25/ yr.  Sign up today, and in addition to a nice little NRA duffel bag, you'll get a one year subscription to an NRA magazine of your choice. (I get the American Rifleman, like my daddy did before me.) The NRA is the premiere organization protecting our Second Amendment rights. They monitor the voting records of politicians and keep track of those who are pro and anti Second Amendment. They send alerts to pending gun legislation in your state, should you care to take some action. They provide services to gun owners, training for police officers, safety programs for children...lots of good stuff.

As an NRA member, you get a 10% discount off Life-Lock. When I heard that Home Depot had been hacked, and I thought of all the credit transactions I've had there, I didn't break a sweat. I figure, I'm covered. One of the things Life-Lock has done for me, that I hadn't even considered, was they sent my name to be removed from the list of people who send you those "You are pre-approved" credit card applications. Life-Lock can reduce your junk mail.

In case you're wondering, this is an unpaid endorsement. Neither the NRA or Life-Lock is giving me one thin dime. (Stick with me and you can be a hard hitting negotiator, too!) But, with the NRA promotion and bennies, if you sign up for the NRA, and then Life-lock, the discount will effectively reduce your NRA membership to about $14/yr. A little over a dollar a month to protect your Second Amendment rights. Such a deal!

If you've been an NRA member in the past and let it lapse, try it again for a year.  If you've never joined, try it for a year and get the full low down on who the NRA is and what they stand for. Don't be surprised if it's 180 degrees different than what you get in the mainstream press.

You can sign up for NRA membership here. Then, go to the NRA homepage and click on "Member benefits" and get yourself a little credit and fraud protection.

Like the old Alka Seltzer commercial...Try it! You'll like it! 

And if anyone asks who referred you, tell 'em it was ol'  Proof Positive, and that although I cannot be bought, but I can be successfully rented from time to time!

Early Bird Doesn't Get Worm, if Worm is Packing Heat

Who are you calling a worm???

PRESCOTT, Ariz. – A 9-year-old boy digging for worms in northern Arizona found a gun buried near his home. Police in Prescott say the stainless-steel .38-caliber revolver was in plastic bag along with one bullet just under the ground's surface. Police say it appears the gun was only covered up to hide it until someone came back to get it. They say they don't know who owns the gun or how it ended up buried near the home of the boy who found it...

Apparently the kid did the right thing and informed his parents or authorities. The NRA runs a program for grade school kids, Eddie Eagle, which instructs kids that if they find a gun, they shouldn't touch it, but tell an adult. Can't let those NRA types near our kids, though. They might infect them with the idea that guns can be useful tools in the right hands sometimes...

When Blunderbusses are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Blunderbusses

In keeping with our mocking of Shepard Fairey...

Shepard Fairey, Propagandist, Strikes Again

Shepard Fairey, the artist who created the infamous Obama "Hope" poster from an infringed AP photograph, is trying his hand at outright propaganda. If you want to see his feeble effort at propaganda(and check to see whose work he might have borrowed for it), you can do so here.

My parody of it is below:

White House: “Repugnant and Cowardly”

...to use children as props in a political discussion.

Oh, wait! They were talking about the NRA, not DJ Barry! But, which side of their mouth were they talking out of? The most common bleat is that the NRA "attacked" Obama's daughters. So, just in case you are one of the two people on the planet who did not see it before, here it is again:


Now, I always though I knew what the word "attack" meant. Refresh my memory...did anyone call Obama's daughters "stupid", or "ugly"...or did they call them anything at all? Seems to me, the NRA only pointed out some inconvenient truths about their father!*

Why does the White House find it repugnant and cowardly for the NRA to compare the safety of the schools the children of the president attend with those of the rest of America, but not find it cowardly and repugnant when the president surrounds himself with children as political props for his press conferences? (Nice politically correct gender/ethnic mix there, too!)

The NRA should have perhaps gone a little farther in their ad than they did. Sidwell Friends is indeed a school for the children of elitists. Had Obama elected to send his daughters to the failing DC public schools (more about them later), they still would have received Secret Service protection. No one is denying them that. But, I have been lead to believe that beyond that, Sidwell Friends has their own "Resource Officers" armed to protect the offspring of the rich and powerful.

Obama is an elitist, even more so, considering that when he took office, there was a voucher program in Washington D.C., a scholarship set up to get poor and underprivileged black children of of the failing DC public schools and into better private ones. (Not a good as Sidwell Friends, but then, what is?) Obama, in a nod to his public school union buddies defunded the voucher program for poor black children in the district, while his own children attend the finest school around, funded with the tax dollars that pay his salary.

Repugnant and cowardly? To use children constantly as political props? To deny poor children the chance to get out of failing schools, just to pay off a political constituency? Yes and yes.

As is often said, if you want to know what a liberal is guilty of, just look at what he accuses his opponent of doing. And Jay Carney knows his boss better than anyone.







*This is not a new technique for Democrats. When Governor Jerry Brown was running for re-election back in the '70s, he debated Evelle Younger, who at one point in the debate, turned aside to Governor Moonbeam's parents who were seated in the auditorium, and said to his mom, "With all due respect to you, Mrs. Brown, your son is a lousy governor." The next day, on a KFBK radio interview, Brown complained that Younger "attacked my mother" during the debate.