|
|
By Stephen, on July 14th, 2009%
Anti-gun groups use mass shootings as a reason to fight against CCW. I guess their “logic” is that “there are people out randomly committing mass murder, so we need to make sure all potential victims are unarmed,” which is actually the opposite of logic and not an argument that rational Americans find compelling.
But I did read with interest when the FSA reported that three mass shootings by CCW licensees.
This year, there have already been three confirmed mass shootings committed by concealed carry permit holders. In April, Richard Poplawski ambushed four Pittsburgh police officers, fatally shooting three and injuring one. In March, CCW holder Michael McLendon killed 11 people, including the wife of a deputy sheriff, before taking his own life following a gun battle with police in Alabama. In February, CCW holder Frank Garcia killed four people in a shooting rampage in upstate New York
So I reviewed those cases to see what part having a CCW license played. Did it allow the shooter to get past a security checkpoint a person without a CCW license could not have? Were the shootings an act of rage for an unexpected provocation, meaning the shooting might not have taken place, or at least been . . . → Read More: Still looking for logic in all the wrong places
By Stephen, on May 20th, 2009%
With positive movement on the Texas bill to allow concealed carry on college campuses the anti-gun groups are once again trotting out a lot of self righteous emotional rhetoric … but barely a thimble-full of rational logic. Which actually identifies the entire anti-gun movement.
The most recent shrill cries come from the campaign to keep guns off campus, apparently part of gunfreekids.org, an organization that considers people eighteen years old and older, all of whom can serve in the army and many of whom are old enough to become police officers, “kids” who need to be kept “gun free” because they are pursuing a higher education instead of serving in the military or becoming police officers.
Our friends at gunguys.com were nice enough to post the entire desperate fear-fest, which is worth looking at (but don’t bother looking for logic, it ain’t there):
(Austin, TX, May 20, 2009) – Today the Texas state senate passed dangerous legislation that would force the carrying of hidden and concealed guns at public universities and colleges.
Well … no … it would allow properly trained, background checked, and licensed civilians to carry firearms for self defense. It wouldn’t force anybody to do anything.
The bill threatens the safety of students, . . . → Read More: Making sure future campus killers have a free kill zone
By Stephen, on April 20th, 2009%
Josh Sugarman, who blames all the violence in America on the NRA, published Yet Another Mass Shooting, at the Washington Post, a fill-in-the-blank article for lazy reporters who don’t want to do real research or unbiased reporting (Washpo is a probably a prime candidate to use this for gun related stories). But I believe a few corrections are in order. I’ve made those corrections marked in red or included in brackets[ ], as I’m certain Mr. Sugarman would not want so many incorrect ideas to go out attached to his name:
*************************************************************************
A heavily armed gunman opened fire yesterday at a[n] [office building/church/school/shopping mall -- one of the places we at VPC and anti-gun groups manipulate laws to make sure everyone is unarmed and helpless] leaving more than [10/20/30 people that we forced to be disarmed and helpless] dead and [seven/nine/other] wounded before taking his own life, which he was forced to do on his own because Police didn’t enter the building until well after the shooting was over and we at VPC made sure no one else was empowered to help him.
Authorities have yet to cite a motive. Armed with a [any kind of gun, whether pump shotgun, semi-automatic rifle, etc. — . . . → Read More: A "fill in the blanks" article for Mass Shootings
By Stephen, on April 16th, 2009%
The 20/20 anti-gun special by Diane Sawyer, If I only had a gun, which sneered at the concept of civilian gun ownership and civilian CCW, was so incredibly biased and poorly done it was the subject of ridicule for just about every pro-freedom/pro-gun blogger on the internet, including myself. But ironically … the only conclusion that one can logically take from it is that civilian CCW can save lives and is something we should promote.
But of course, the Freedom States Alliance shills at gunguys.com saw it a little differently:
On Friday, April 10th, ABC News’ 20/20 investigative report demonstrated conclusively, through repeated tests, that armed students could not stop a rampage shooting even after being clued into the experiments.
A real-life encounter would be even more surprising, disorienting and virtually impossible for armed students to defend themselves and others. In fact, ABC News concluded that an armed student or professor could easily kill or injure innocent students while attempting to flee or hide from an attacker.
As a quick refresher, 20/20 built a scenario in which an untrained person was given a gun and put in a pre-determined spot so that a police firearms instructor could burst into the room and him/her with . . . → Read More: Sometimes you just have to laugh … particularly when a study meant to be anti-gun proves the opposite
By Stephen, on April 10th, 2009%
I watched Diane Sawyer’s 20/20 episode titled If I only had a gun. It was an hour long anti-gun/anti-CCW hatchet job that was introduced by a Brady Campaign spokesman and followed the Brady line without variance or logical analysis. Out of the whole hour the lessons learned were clear: you should keep guns secured if you have kids, it’s hard to react to a highly trained professional shooter who pops up and opens fire at point blank range, and AN ARMED CITIZEN CAN DEFEND AGAINST EVEN A CAREFULLY PLOTTED OUT ATTACK. (that last was the opposite of what they were trying to do, but for proof, read the link. For information on the level of bias in Sawyer’s hit piece, read on).
The centerpiece of the production was a situation supposed to mimic the NIU shooting — and I will say there were some interesting observations to be made.
The scenario:
A classroom is filled with actors and one student who’s been given a paint-bullet loaded gun and told it’s his/her job to defend the classroom. S/he has little training and a retention holster s/he has little experience with. A gunman unexpectedly bursts into the room and begins shooting from a few feet away.
The . . . → Read More: ABC anti-gun hatchet job on 20/20
By Stephen, on December 26th, 2008%
Such a horrifying story: Bruce Pardo, a 45 year old church usher with no criminal record, dons a Santa Claus costume and drives to a Los Angeles Christmas Eve party to massacre 9 before committing suicide. His tools were guns, a “home made device” that sprayed “fire accelerant,” and other explosives (his car reportedly blew up). Details are still not complete, but nothing will change the fact that there are innocent people dead because of the insanity of a single man. An entire family is apparently murdered and many others have been shattered by violent loss.
If I said that my belief that an armed citizenry is safest in the long run is never shaken or that I never question it, I would be lying. Nearly every day I drive by Columbine High School, the high school my own children will attend when they are old enough, and cannot help but think back to that day in 1999 when two teenage murderers bought their fame by committing the most horrific school shooting imaginable . On frequent trips to the mountains I pass by Platte Canyon High School where an assault just as horrifying though with a lower body count took place 2 . . . → Read More: Guns are empowerment … but empowerment is not always for the best
By Stephen, on November 18th, 2008%
It’s startling to find common sense on violence in the mainstream media, a fact that makes our society rather pathetic. But take a look at this video on mass shootings, which restates what most of us have known for years; gun-free zones are free-fire zones for mass murderers, and they are actively attracted to such places.
Video Here
DayPortPlayer.newPlayer({articleID:”24443″,bannerAdObjectID:”null”,videoAdObjectID:”null”,videoAdConDefID:”2″,playerInstanceID:”24FAD9E0-DC70-2532-414F-7E6F051C4C2F”,domain:”wcpo.dayport.com”,rootCategory:”null”,categoryID:”23″,accPos:”CCTVI.NEWS.LOCAL”,accSite:”WCPO”});
To say that old policies failed at Columbine is a tragic understatement. The officer on duty at the school exchanged fire with the murderer’s as they entered, then stayed outside and waited for backup and the SWAT team (why the hell was he there if not to chase down killers and protect lives?).
While police cars poured into the parking lot outside and setup a perimeter and kept everyone else out, and while 911 operators told students in the building to stay where they were and wait for the police to come, the two murders sauntered around the halls killing wherever they wanted.
I know police officers, and as a group they are NOT cowards, and most would relish the opportunity to fight murderers and protect children (for many the protector instinct was one reason they chose their career). So why was it those carloads full of . . . → Read More: A little common sense on mass murder & School Shootings
By Stephen, on October 25th, 2008%
I’m often quite harsh on the anti-gun crowd, and I think there is usually some understandable provocation for that — anti-gun writings tend to be condescending and more full of anti-gun hysteria/hyperbole than the “common sense” they claim to have a monoply on. But to give credit where credit is due, CSGV Director of Communications Ladd Everitt wrote an interesting blog entry about some time he spent with Brian Borgelt, the former owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply store (where the DC “snipers” bought their rifle).
It’s still anti-gun, but at least it’s not hysteria and insults. And he had the courage to allow posting of comments, . . . → Read More: There are people with a heart in the anti-gun community
By Stephen, on October 23rd, 2008%
After every mass shooting anti-gun groups blame the availability of firearms and promote their standard list of gun laws whether relevant or not. But guns are just one tool of mass murder, not the most efficient tool, and NOT a motivation. i.e. no one suddenly realizes that they can legally buy a gun, and because of it decide to go to the mall and murder everyone they see.
The fact is that a murderer decides to commit murder and THEN chooses his tool from what is available. They often do choose a gun of one type or another, but if guns are not available there are many other effective weapons that are. And as can be seen below, the largest mass murders in every category were committed not with firearms, but with explosives.The main reason for this gruesome statistic is the same lesson learned by the armies of the world and the major terrorist groups; firearms are designed for personal defense, and ordinance (explosives) are many times more effective for attacking a large force or group of people.
For those who view this post as ghoulish I truly apologize. I am not trying to make a pro-gun point with it and not . . . → Read More: The Butcher’s Bill – Non-gun mass murders:
By Stephen, on September 26th, 2008%
I understand some people are anti-gun, but why must they resort to lies to make their point? Take this story from Yale, which uses a shameless lie to promote the position of the writer. If the Anti-Gun groups have the moral and logical high ground, why do they avoid logic and truth like the plague? You’d think they’d have nothing but brilliant logic, given their condescending tone when arguing for “common sense” gun laws. You normally don’t have to use spin to prove something is common sense – unless it’s really not, of course.
Take this bit of info from the aforementioned article:
But, as criminals often act despite the presence of police, armed guards or even armed rivals, one might begin to suspect that the introduction of a concealed-carry policy might have a muted effect on crime rates. Clark didn’t seem to know — or perhaps didn’t care — that this state’s (Connecticut’s) shall-issue concealed-carry policy has been in effect since 1969. Surely, we should expect to see a huge drop in state-level crime rates when criminals were suddenly faced with possibly armed victims, no?
Really? Connecticut has been shall-issue for concealed carry since 1969? This would be news to both the . . . → Read More: Concealed carry on College Campuses – Yale students start spinning facts young
|
If you like the blog, give my book a try.
Off Road
The best book ever written!
Well ... at least by me.
Follow me with Google Friend Finder!
The Second Amendment Foundation – preserving the rights of us all!
|
Comments are closed 
