BALTIMORE - At least one gunman opened fire at a backyard cookout, wounding a dozen people, Baltimore police said Monday.
Maryland: Ranked #5 by the Brady Campaign for their "common sense" gun laws such as a ban on semi-automatic pistols and allowing the police to determine whether you have the privilege of defending yourself or not.
There is always talk of gun owners, store owners, manufacturers, and the "gun lobby" having a shared responsibility for gun violence, but where is the responsibility on the part of the civilian disarmament advocates? Can those 12 injured victims hold responsible the people and organizations who have lobbied to render them defenseless? If any of the victims had been denied a concealed carry permit (MD being a may-issue state), could they snuff out the police department?
These two incidents also dispel the notion that "guns are not the answer, at least not for regular people." Guns were clearly the answer for these two "regular people". While training is good and should be encouraged, these and the thousands of other defensive gun uses prove that you don't have to be "highly trained" or even an adult to successfully defend yourself with a gun.
In a previous entry, I posted an e-mail from the Brady Campaign where they were attempting to point out the "hypocrisy" of those who supported the Thune Amendment:
"Extending these permits to other states would be risking public safety, as well as an astounding (and hypocritical for many Senators) violation of legitimate states' rights."
Senator Tom Coburn had a very good rebuttal to their claims:
"We had a vote in terms of honoring States rights in terms of the national park bill on guns. Twenty-nine of my colleagues, thirteen of whom now are 'defending States rights,' stepped all over States rights with their vote against the Coburn amendment when it came to allowing people to have supreme their State law in terms of national parks."
That basically confirms what I said in the previous blog entry. The Brady Campaign values states' rights when they can use it to obstruct pro-gun legislation, but is willing to trample states' rights in order to push anti-gun legislation.
FONTANA -- A man is under arrest after police say he hacked his estranged wife to death with a machete.
The woman's body was found Wednesday in the back of Mimi's Hair Designs in Fontana where she worked.
Witnesses say there were 11 employees and a few customers in the salon when 39 year old Horacio Gonzalez came into the store with a machete and began stabbing his estranged wife.
Gonzalez was arrested just before 6 p.m. -- about two hours after the attack. He remains hospitalized after he apparently drank bleach, according to police Sergeant Jeff Decker.
Decker says Gonzalez , who is expected to survive, will be booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on murder charges once he is released from the hospital.
Court records indicate his wife had a restraining order against Gonzalez because of domestic violence and filed for divorce in March.
A child custody hearing had been scheduled for next week.
Stories like this prove that you can completely remove guns from the equation and violence will still exist. Crazed ex-lovers will not become angels overnight simply because they don't have a gun. Domestic violence is a people problem, not a gun problem. Gun violence is a symptom of that problem. And you can't fix the problem by treating the symptoms.
You can license gun owners. You can register guns. You can require them to be locked up. You can make them child-proof, "smart", and low capacity. You can allow people to buy only one gun per month. You can make them as difficult to buy as possible or even outright ban them. And you've done nothing but change the method in which violent people will kill others and make it harder for those most at risk to defend themselves.
There is no moral superiority in being stabbed to death as opposed to shot. Nor is there any moral superiority in being defenseless in the face of those who are bigger, stronger, or better armed. So until the gun controllers realize that they aren't preventing violence, but only displacing it, i'm not convinced their pursuit is a moral one.
...was the title of an e-mail I received from the Brady Campaign. The complete text follows:
Dear ******,
At noon Wednesday, the U.S. Senate will vote on legislation that would force states to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public.
You can help us stop this legislation with a call now.
This dangerous legislation would reduce the gun laws in nearly all states to the "lowest common denominator" of the states with the weakest laws.
For example, Alaska permits residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who are sexual predators to carry a concealed weapon. They would be able to carry concealed loaded weapons in 47 other states under this new legislation.
Extending these permits to other states would be risking public safety, as well as an astounding (and hypocritical for many Senators) violation of legitimate states' rights.
The gun lobby's legislation, if passed, will make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs.
Congress needs to say "NO" to the gun lobby. We don’t want to put our families and communities at more risk.
Standard Brady press. My biggest problem is with the title. Apparently they want to keep Sarah Palin's gun laws in Alaska (never mind the fact she didn't write them). How about this Brady Campaign: If we keep Sarah Palin's gun laws in Alaska, can we keep Carolyn McCarthy's gun laws in New York? Can we keep Diane Feinstein's gun laws in California? Can we keep Barack Obama's gun laws in Illinois?
It's funny how the Brady Campaign values states' rights when they can use it to obstruct pro-gun legislation, but is willing to trample states' rights in order to push anti-gun legislation. Talk about hypocrisy...
As for the risk to public safety, why hasn't Sarah Palin's gun laws been repealed? I know why they haven't been repealed. It's because they aren't a significant problem. Concealed carry holders are by far more law-abiding than the public at large and even law enforcement officers.
The anti-gunner's reaction to nationwide concealed carry reciprocity is just another manifestation of their "blood in the streets" fantasy. In reality, the only places where the blood is flowing in the streets is where the anti-gunners have had the most success.
At the sentencing of Michael Mario Pace, killer of Blair Holt:
St. Sabina Church Pastor and anti-violence crusader Father Michael Pfleger says this was, in a way, a double tragedy.
"There's another child, I said today, died in the courtroom," Pfleger said.
For contrast, this is what Pfleger says about people who actually obey the law:
"He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out… you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out."
Did you get that? Remorseless, cold blooded murderer gets 100 years behind bars? Tragedy. Law abiding person who sells guns? You need to be snuffed out.
I put this up because the question was interesting and also implies a paradox. If the people who most love guns were offered this choice, the rest of us could pass real gun control. Voila.
There isn't much of a paradox there, because the guy with the gun still gets to vote.
The map is fairly accurate in one way, however. The greenest states have already given up much of their right to bear arms. However the reddest states still have just as much of a right to vote as the greenest states.
Because a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose "some sort of gun control laws." In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws.
It's almost as if Gun Guys is banking on the ignorance of their readers. They're hoping that their target demographic is completely unaware of the fact it was the NRA that advocated the passing of the NICS Improvement Act.
In reality, the majority of gun owners (even the activist core) are in favor of some gun controls... As long as they are effective in reducing crime, not just mala prohibita designed to increase the complexity and expense of owning and using a firearm.
At Pandagon, a blog entry about creating sperm in a lab is as good a time as ever to complain about "paranoid, racist, NRA gun nuts". After all, they haven't had much opportunity to do so lately:
From what I can tell, all these came from the right wing press, so it isn’t hard to figure out what’s going on here. The more invested members of the dominant class are in maintaining their oppression of others, the more they have elaborate, paranoid fears that the Other will rise up and kill them one day. I have no doubt, hailing as I do from Redneckia, that the gun nut culture---at least the NRA paranoid version, not just people who like to own guns and shoot them at targets, but have no interest in worrying that Obama is going to take their guns away---stems from a deeply embedded racism. That’s why there’s so much nonsensical talk about the statistically low dangers of home invasion while you’re at home. Guess what race they imagine the home invader to be. It’s not conscious, but the ever-present fears of black criminality in this particular set of white people goes straight back to their own stranglehold on white privilege, which is so strong they assume that it will all end in violence.
Why else do you think the fears that Obama specifically will take their guns have such a hold on their imagination? You got that fear with Clinton, but not even close to the same degree. I’m lucky that I don’t spend much of my time around racist rednecks, but friends of mine who have to for work will say that yeah, it’s a fear they talk about non-fucking-stop.
Also check out the rest of their gun-related posts.
Aside from many of the posts being completely devoid of fact, it gives a good insight into the average leftist mentality behind gun control, where crime is of lesser concern than the evils of armed christian white men who all hate women and minorities.
JPFO has already put together an excellent video detailing how gun control disproportionately disarms black people.
It would be nice to see someone do a video about how gun control also disproportionately disarms gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people as well. Especially since two of America's gun control havens (New York city and San Francisco) are home to the largest GLBT populations.
They stopped only when a passing motorist threatened to call the police. Throughout the attack, Leslie's assailants called her a "faggot" in Spanish. The attack left Leslie with multiple injuries, including bruises all over her body, and stitches in her scalp. Police called to the scene found Leslie nearly naked and bleeding on the sidewalk. They also recovered a belt buckle from the assailants that was covered in blood.
A lot of people cite incidents like the above as a good reason to pressure legislatures into making hate-crime legislation transgender inclusive. Unfortunately, hate-crime legislation only works after the crime has been committed, more often than not after the victim is dead. A better solution would be to ensure that all people have equal access to effective self-defense. Specifically, do away with "may-issue" licensing that only opens up the doors for discriminatory practices like "need assessments". Whether you're gay or straight, no one can determine whether you have a "need" to protect yourself or not.
Pink Pistols is an organization that helps GLBT "select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense." As their motto says: Armed gays don't get based.
