It's a good thing only police can carry guns in Chicago...

Otherwise, innocent people might get hurt.

Off duty cop gets into gun fight with a criminal (under shady circumstances), shoots criminal in the hand and also hits innocent woman in the head.



We're told by the gun controllers/banners that police officers have super duper elite training that makes them the only ones qualified to carry a gun. We're also told that gun-carrying, permit holding citizens are just a bunch of wannabe Dirty Harrys who will fill the streets with the blood of innocent bystanders.

But the facts are clear: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

Further reading:
Calif. DA: Police killing of bystander justified
Police: Wounded bystander probably shot by deputy

A new strategy... For failure.

From the latest alphabet soup gun banning group:

Because we outnumber the NRA’s extremist members by 50 to 1, NGAC’s economic lever gives our side a strategy the NRA cannot defeat. This is the first time they have faced such a situation.

...

By initiating targeted boycotts—Starbucks being the first because of their vigorous support of the Pro-Gun Agenda, as evidenced by their allowing open carry of guns in their stores, despite the fact that they have the legal right to ban them—we will create an economic lever and change the balance of power in this fight.

Today was their big day. How much economic leverage did they lever upon Starbucks? Well, not too much:

Assuming every person who liked their Facebook page would have spent an average of $10, Starbucks would have lost a whopping $2550. On the other hand, if every person who participated in the "buycott" spent $10 on average, not only would they recoup their $2550 loss, but make an extra $242,150. In other words, the Starbucks boycott was an irrelevant speck on their balance sheets.

I really hope that this is the future of gun-controller/banner activism, because it works so well in favor of those who fully support 2nd Amendment rights. Why? Because, regardless of what inane activity they plan, whether it is lighting candles or not going to a place that they didn't go to to begin with, 2nd Amendment supporters will always be able to counter them with more warm bodies and, most importantly, more money.

Bought this and left a $2 bill tip.

Support Starbuck's on 2-14-12.

It's what they don't say that matters.

From Media Matters:

Major gun violence prevention groups are upfront about their support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection. Here's what the website of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says:

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

And here's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.

Reading those quotes from the Brady Campaign and MAIG, I don't see anything that explicitly supports the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

The Brady Campaign says they "believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms." Buying and keeping a firearm is one thing. Being able to lawfully carry and/or use it for self-defense is another. For example, a modern day English subject can (under extraordinarily draconian restrictions) buy and keep a firearm. However the use of it in self-defense will result in a night in jail. And if you dare carry a firearm, you are automatically a criminal.

If you peruse the Brady Campaign's website, you won't find anything in support of self-defense in the home or outside of the home. On the contrary, you will find plenty against self-defense. For example, their opposition to HR 822 which would protect the right of self-defense across state lines and their opposition to Castle Doctrine which protects the right of self-defense in the home.

The story is no different for MAIG. Nothing on their website explicitly states that they support the right of self-defense inside or outside the home. MAIG is opposed to HR 822. MAIG founder Mike Bloomberg is also no fan of guns or gun owner's period.

So where is this upfront support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection? Definitely not on their websites.

I vow to never forget the victims.

I vow to never forget the unarmed victims of not just "gun violence", but all violence. This candle is lit for those who couldn't defend themselves because they were in a "Gun Free Zone". This candle is lit for those who live in "May Issue" states. This candle is lit for the citizens of Illinois, New Jersey, California, New York City, and anyone else living in a place where the government forces you under threat of law to be a victim.

Please join those of us who refuse to be victims by lighting your own candle to stop violence.

#toomanyvictims

Scott Brown goes left.

From HuffPo: Scott Brown Comes Out Against NRA-Backed Legislation.

When he was elected, I warned:

Looks like he will continue to be the typical east coast RINO in the same vain as Romney and Steele.

Carolyn McCarthy is all of a sudden concerned about state rights.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My question to her: Where was the concern for states rights during the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban that you campaigned so hard for? If a state has the "right" to determine who can and can't legally carry a concealed firearm, then don't they also have the right to determine who can and can't own an "assault weapon" or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition?

Shooting in Brooklyn reveals a couple of problems.

via the New York Post:

A pregnant 34-year-old Brooklyn woman walking home with her child from school was fatally shot as she bravely shielded hers and other children when gunfire erupted on a Brownsville street today.
Bullets also struck an 11-year-old girl and a 31-year-old woman who was walking out of P.S./I.S. 298 with her own kids right after dismissal at about 2:35 p.m., authorities said.

1. The most obvious problem is that New York's strong gun laws and New York City's even stronger gun laws did not work. Licensing, registration, magazine limits, extraneous background checks... They all failed.

2. New York City's defacto prohibition on carrying firearms for self-defense ensured that the shooter had a target rich environment. The New York City government did their best to make sure that there was absolutely no chance that anyone could fire back and in turn force him to abandon his "mission".

3. Gangs are the problem, not people who go through the process of getting vetted and licensed to carry a gun, Mr. Schneiderman.

Have terrorists ever had a problem acquiring weapons?

Aside from the fact that you can't buy machine guns at gun shows, has a terrorist ever had a problem getting guns? Guns are all but completely outlawed in India, but that had no effect on the Mumbai Massacre. You could completely outlaw the sale of firearms in the US and go door-to-door and pull a Diane Feinstein and you still couldn't stop a terrorist attack.

Unsurprisingly, the gun-controllers/banners are set to exploit their new terrorist friend, Adam Gadahn.



A mass terrorist shooting is inevitable on US soil and there is only one way to limit the damage of such an event. We have to do what the Indian citizens couldn't do and what the Indian police didn't do: Shoot back.

The one dimensional mind of a gun controller/banner.

Baldr Odinson of New Trajectory:

If you came upon someone on the street who was smoking pot and clearly stoned, how would you feel if they were handed a loaded gun? Do you think that person would have sound judgment, enough to handle a lethal weapon? Would they have good aim? Would you feel safer?

In the simplistic, one-dimensional world of gun-control/banning, a ruling against law enforcement officers denying concealed carry permits to those who hold medical marijuana cards means that everyone who has a medical marijuana card and a concealed carry permit will be walking around stoned with a gun.

Of course reality isn't that simple or one-dimensional.

We as a society trust those who are of legal drinking age to drive automobiles and it's clearly evident that our trust isn't misplaced. We have a statistically irrelevant number of DUI arrests per year compared to the total number of licensed drivers on the road (1.5 million out of 196 million or approximately 0.8% ). It's time we as a society give that same amount of trust to those who have medical marijuana cards.

If less than 10% of medical marijuana card holders carry under the influence, then it's worth it. Nine people being able to defend themselves is worth the price of one idiot who abuses the right to do so.

Blood in the Streets: Gun Free Edition.

In my last post, I mentioned the gun-controllers/banners baseless fear that law abiding citizens carrying guns would lead to shootouts over parking spaces. The corollary being that with fewer law-abiding people carrying guns, the process of fighting over a parking space would be safer. Obviously, that is not true.

In New York City where the right to own and carry a handgun is severely infringed, arguing over a parking space is still equally as deadly if not more deadly than in Phoenix, Oklahoma City, or any other city that respects the 2nd Amendment:

Woman in Coma After Fight Over Parking Space: MyFoxNY.com

Gun-controllers/banners love to blame law-abiding gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates for gun violence. "Shared Responsibility" they call it. I believe it's only fair that they share the responsibility for this woman being in a coma, because if not for their crusade against guns and their blessing of NYC's draconian gun laws, this woman may have been armed and able to defend herself.

It's also a great time to remind you that President Obama would prefer she be in a coma, than able to defend herself.

Blood in the Streets: Campus Carry Edition.

When right-to-carry laws were first passed, the gun-controller/banner movement wailed about how every day situations would somehow turn into gun fights. Fender benders, arguments over parking spaces, and arguments at little league games were supposed to turn into blood baths if a firearm were legally present. Blood would run in the streets. That falls in line with the gun-controller/banner belief that firearms have some sort of influence over the thoughts of the person who holds it, much like a drug or magic talisman.

However, the past 25 years of right-to-carry has proven their belief wrong. Not a single state or municipality can link right-to-carry to an increase in criminal shootings. People who legally carry a gun are more law-abiding on average than the population at large. As a result, not a single state has moved to repeal it's right-to-carry laws. In fact, some states are moving to expand right-to-carry to more places, such as college campuses. And with that expansion comes more warnings of "Blood in the Streets".

The new belief is that if legally carried guns are allowed on college campuses, there will be shootouts over broken romances, bad grades, binge drinking, and coke parties; That a person who is sane and law-abiding enough to carry a gun in movie theaters, restaurants, and stores will turn into a drunken, drug riddled, psychopath waiting to shoot at the slightest provocation upon crossing an arbitray line.

Of course that is complete and utter nonsense. As campus carry is passed in more places, we will see that the rate of criminal shootings on college campuses will either decrease, or at the worst, remain unchanged. And much like right-to-carry off campus, right-to-carry on campus will spread across the nation as more people realize that the gun-controller/banner fears of "Blood in the Streets" are unfounded.

But the greatest, potential long-term benefit of campus carry is one of the darkest fears of the gun-controllers/banners: More people will buy more guns at a younger age, resulting in more gun owners who will resist their future efforts.

Gun show fail.

You'd think before discussing an issue, you'd at least make a small effort to not be completely wrong about the issue. Apparently, that's asking too much of Brady Campaign member Joan Peterson:

So if loaded guns are prohibited at gun shows, they should be prohibited in other public places as well. If law abiding gun owners are willing to leave their loaded guns at home when going to shop for more guns, surely they can leave them at home when they go to the shopping malls or out to eat.

That's simply not true. There is a blanket prohibition that applies to guns that are being displayed, sold, or handled by the public. But by law, gun shows are no different than gun stores, shopping malls, restaurants, or any other retail establishment. You can carry a loaded gun as long as you are in compliance with the law and the property owner's rules.

Lots of gun friendly laws being proposed in Oklahoma.

All sorts of gunny goodness:

HB 1291 Firearms Freedom Act
HB 1400 Open Carry Act
HB 1796 Another Open Carry Act
HB 553 Expands concealed carry to some currently prohibited places
SB 896 Campus Carry

And the Jerome Ersland Act:

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A state senator is proposing a new law that would be known as the "Jerome Ersland Act." Senator Ralph Shortey (R-Oklahoma City) says the bill would presume that a business owner was acting in self-defense if that owner shoots and kills an armed robber.

If any of these make their way to Governor Fallin's desk, they should be signed. After all, she has a reputation to uphold.

Will the real Barack Obama stand up?

Tonight is the State of the Union Address. When it comes to guns, Barack Obama has two choices: He can continue down his current path of hiding from and avoiding his pre-POTUS roots as a big-city gun banner OR we will witness the resurgence of the real Barack Obama. The anti concealed-carry, anti "assault weapon", Fudd-pandering elitist this blog was created to examine.

Watch this space.

UPDATE: In terms of gun control, the SOTU Address was a non-event. President Obama said nothing about guns and the only people who noticed were the members of gun banner brigade and George Stephanopoulos.

What does this mean? Nothing really. Obama's position hasn't changed since he has taken office.

From the Today Show:

MATT LAUER: And real quickly, if you will, in the wake of those tragic shootings out in Tucson, there have been calls by some for tougher gun laws in this country. The mayor of New York City, at an event yesterday called on the President to use this opportunity to get tough on gun laws and to change the way background checks are done for gun purchasers. Will the President directly address gun control in tonight's speech?

VALERIE JARRETT: I'm not gonna preview for tonight what he is going to say in the speech, specifically, but what I will say is obviously we're gonna have an empty seat in the chamber. Congresswoman Giffords, although she is recovering, she has a long way to go. It is a reminder of how we have to work to bring down crime, how we have to work to build an environment of civility where we can disagree without leading to violence. And the President clearly has always stated that he supports the assault weapons ban. So I don't want to get to much into the details of tonight. But certainly an empty seat in the House is a reminder for everyone, not just there this evening, but around the country.

It's obvious that President Obama has realized that gun control (especially the assault weapon ban) is bad politics pushed by a small, yet vocal minority and he is not willing to risk the rest of his political agenda on the hunches of few anti-gun busybodies.

A good reason to carry a gun in a national park.

From HuffPo:

TORONTO — Two coyotes attacked a promising young musician as she was hiking alone in a national park in eastern Canada, and authorities said she died Wednesday of her injuries.

First mistake: Hiking alone.

Second mistake: Hiking unarmed.

Half-Truth #1: Cars kill more people.

Betty continues:

Cars kill more people than guns do!! That's why we license, insure, and train all car operators! We, the responsible hunters and sport shooters of Texas, need to encourage more people to go through the CHL course to learn their responsibilities and rights.

True. Cars do kill more people than guns, but that's not why we license, insure, and train all car operators. We license, insure, and train all car operators because most people operate their motor vehicles on public roads. If you're operating your motor vehicle on private property (a race track for example), the requirement of a license, insurance, and training is solely at the discretion of the property owner.

Thus, motor vehicle licensing, insurance, and training are more more akin to concealed-carry licensing and training (operating a firearm on public property), not licensing and training for gun owners overall.

But that argument is moot as Barack Obama supports a federal ban on concealed carry licensing.