Guns - American Style

[Diane Amberg]

So leave the guns out of it and look at other ways to keep people safe. Such as ''hardening'' the buildings against outside gun attacks. It won't keep shooters from attacking people outside, but it would keep them from getting inside locked doors to shoot or pull fire alarms. There are several ways to go at this. Arming everyone is not a comfortable solution for many people.

[Warph]

So leave the guns out of it and look at other ways to keep people safe. Such as ''hardening'' the buildings against outside gun attacks. It won't keep shooters from attacking people outside, but it would keep them from getting inside locked doors to shoot or pull fire alarms. There are several ways to go at this. Arming everyone is not a comfortable solution for many people.

Wha... hardening the buildings?  At what cost??  It would be a lot cheaper to buy a Browning pump 12 ga. @ $600. then to spend thousands to renovate a building.

[Warph]

'Aaahhh... the BullSh!tterMeister running off at the mouth
with his crappy lies'
               

Guns and Piers Morgan

By Larry Elder
1/3/2013
CNN's Piers Morgan writes that the pro-gun crowd's anger toward him stems from anti-British bias: "This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America -- and I'm just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I'm British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget."

Scads of "in-sourced" Brits appear on our telly without us Yanks calling for their deportation. Hell, we just let a Brit play Abe Lincoln. Fox's Stuart Varney seems to escape this anti-mother country xenophobia.

Maybe, just maybe, it's the way Morgan -- as well as much of the guns-kill-people-crowd -- holds "debates" on the matter.

Take the treatment of Larry Pratt. Respected in circles that Piers "I-have- fired-guns-only-once-in-my-life" Morgan chooses not to hang out with, Pratt heads a pro-Second Amendment group called the Gun Owners of America. Pratt, on Morgan's show, attempted to explain that the "gun control" big picture requires understanding something: Hundreds of thousand of Americans, every year, use firearms for self-defense.

Morgan's response? He called Pratt "an incredibly stupid man" and denounced "idiots like you." Then came this: "You don't give a damn," Morgan said, "do you, about the gun murder rate in America? You don't actually care."

Morgan offered no study, expert, number -- nothing whatsoever -- to counter the claim. That anyone with a moderately functioning brain could find an upside in owning, let alone using, a gun simply astonishes Morgan. Defies common sense!

Is it true, as claimed by Florida criminalist Gary Kleck, that 2.5 million Americans each year use a firearm for self-defense? Is it true that, of that number, 400,000 people believe that, were it not for the gun they used, they would have been killed? These are questions and answers the anti-gun crowd ignores, chooses not to think about or considers irrelevant.

"How many Americans are alive," I once asked a pro-gun control police chief, "because they used a firearm in self defense?"

"I don't know the answer to that," he said.

"You know the exact number of people murdered because of guns," I said, "but you don't know how many people are alive because of them?"

"No, I don't."

"What if I told you of a study that said 2.5 million people use guns every year for self-defense -- and that of that number 400,000 believe had they not had the gun, they would have been killed?"

"I don't believe that."

"What's your number?"

"Don't have one -- and it doesn't matter. We have too many guns in this country. "

At least the police chief admitted that however many more people are alive than dead because of guns, he nevertheless wants guns even more restricted.

What's Piers Morgan's excuse? He simply refused to believe the data.

What about the 2.5 million number? Pro-gun-control law professor and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, of Northwestern University, examined Kleck's data and methodology. Just how pro-gun control is Wolfgang? He wrote: "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of 'Brave New World,' I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns -- ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

But of Kleck's claim that 2.5 million Americans yearly use guns for self-defense? Wolfgang wrote: "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ... I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

The Oscar-winning Michael Moore says America possesses "too many guns" because of racism. For my pro-Second Amendment documentary, "Michael & Me," I "ambushed" Moore. The anti-gun Moore, by the way, was surrounded by security and coming into a venue a back way to avoid the very "ambush interviews" in which he specializes. Three times I asked Moore how often Americans use guns to defend themselves. Three times Moore deflected the question, merely repeating "we have too many guns."

Morgan is right. Per capita, we have nearly 50 times the gun murder rate compared to the gun murder rate of England. But look at all murders, whether by knife or baseball bat. Rather than 50 times the rate, it is less than five -- not 50 -- times higher than the murders committed by any means in England. For my documentary, I interviewed Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of "Guns and Violence." She said the same murder rate discrepancy -- five times the British rate -- existed between New York City and London for two centuries, and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

This must make Malcolm "an incredibly stupid woman." Debate over.

[Warph]

                       


Illinois Pushes for (which could be complete and total) Gun Ban

By: John Hayward
1/3/2013 09:03 AM


Click here to watch a video: Gun Free Zones.

Illinois is America's heartland basket case, a dysfunctional state teetering on the edge of outright fiscal collapse.[/b] But they've got plenty of time for gun-control grandstanding, especially since it allows big-shot politicians to talk tough and shove law-abiding citizens around. Fox News reports on the push for something close to outright gun confiscation in the Land of Lincoln:

Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.

Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an "urgent alert" to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.

"There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering," the group stated in its alert. "You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution."

Well, unless you're a criminal, of course. In that case, you can hang onto your guns and continue your normal daily routine of avoiding prosecution.

The phrase "semi-automatic weapons" is generally deployed as scare language to conjure visions of Al Pacino screaming "Say hello to my little friend!" and filling the air with hot lead, but most guns are semi-automatic these days, as the NRA hastened to point out:

One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. People who currently own such weapons could keep them but would have to register them. The bill would allow semiautomatic weapons to be used at shooting ranges, but those facilities would be regulated.

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told lawmakers the bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of long guns in circulation today. He also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals, and is in conflict with Second Amendment rights upheld by the courts.
I
've never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions," Vandermyde said.

The other bill, introduced by Democratic state Sen. Dan Kotowski, would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.

(Emphasis mine.) Fox News notes that gun makers are thinking about fleeing Illinois and taking their jobs with them, but that should be no big deal for the state government – they're quite accustomed to capital flight.

Gun manufactures in Illinois have already threatened to leave the area if laws limiting guns are put in place. ArmaLite owner Mark Westrom told FoxNews.com that he's been fielding offers from at least two others states to move his operation if gun control laws in Illinois are pushed through.

The Supreme Court would most likely strike the more restrictive of these laws down. In fact, Illinois has already been warned by federal judges that its existing ban on concealed-carry permits needs an overhaul. Which is too bad, because the strictest gun control laws in the nation have already made Chicago into a pastoral murder-free Elysium.

Whatever is going to happen, it will happen fast. The sponsors of this legislation are desperately trying to ram it through the final week of a lame-duck session. Citing an NRA alert, the Examiner explains that "to pass a draconian new gun law, Illinois' forcible citizen disarmament advocates will need the votes of many legislators who were voted out of office in November, and have only one more week before they must seek honest work." The actual criminals of Illinois can look forward to plying their dishonest trade against an even more thorougly disarmed populace.

What Lincoln do?

[/font][/size]

[Warph]

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

by AWR Hawkins




According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.



Also...

[Diane Amberg]

Remember, I'm not an anti gun person, but I am against twisted logic, especially when reported by someone who is paid huge bucks to sell that kind of idea.
How many kids were killed in multiple numbers in one incident by one or two people with hammers? Or any other weapon besides a gun?
How many kids were run down or murdered in intentional vehicle accidents with multiple fatalities?
Besides, cars don't kill people, drivers do.
I hate those arguments, they are totally meaningless! But those do make sense to people who aren't very bright.
  What about bombings that take multiple lives, including children? The emotional interest in that goes away after a short time and the "inconvenience' becomes more important! Such is human nature.

[jarhead]

Quote from Diane :
How many kids were killed in multiple numbers in one incident by one or two people with hammers? Or any other weapon besides a gun?


Teacher and 7 children killed in China school attack
May 12, 2010


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An attacker has hacked seven children and one teacher to death and wounded 20 others in a violent rampage at a kindergarten in northwest China's Shaanxi province. The slaying marked the latest in a string of attacks on schools nationwide and came despite an ordered boost in security at school grounds. Liu Xiaoming, the deputy director of the propaganda department of Hanzhong city where the latest attack occurred, confirmed the deaths and injuries and said the attacker had killed himself afterward.

[Diane Amberg]

That was China. I don't know what their gun laws are. I assume very restrictive as compared to here, I don't know. I meant here, of course. So should we just give up based on that article?

[jarhead]

That was China---not here. What---Chinese children's lives are not as valuable as American children ?
You talk about twisted logic.
I think it was the same days and the Conn. shootings there was a crazy bastard that slashed and hacked about 20 kids at a school in China, so no, let's not base it on just that one article.
As for you not being anti gun---I can say I aint a chubby little feller but just cause I say it doesn't mean it's true.

[Warph]

In my world, if a violent altercation occurs between two humans, the innocent assaulted party should live, and if anybody has to die or get critically wounded, it should be the sadistic perpetrator.  Call me freaky.

To make certain this occurs, the innocent party has to be able to do one or two things when the crap hits the fan:

1. Open up a can of whup ass and immobilize the foul weed, thus sending him to the hospital.

2. Double-lung the loser with a hot dose of lead, thus sending him to hell.

Yes, the one being preyed upon has to be able to do the abovementioned because the quickest cop on the planet cannot respond fast enough to save your backside should things go violently south.  You dig?  Oh, I know ... it will never happen to you.

Of the aforementioned, an 18-year-old Oklahoma teen mom, Sarah McKinley, selected option #2 early last year.  McKinley, who had just lost her husband to lung cancer on Christmas Day, was home with her 3-month-old baby boy on New Year's Eve when two dillweeds decided they were going to break into her casa.  Good Sarah was having none of it.  Are you paying attention, Diane?  You are?  Excellent.

McKinley, upon hearing and spotting one of the Darwinian holdovers wielding a 12-inch hunting knife, cordoned off her door with a couch, put a bottle in her kid's mouth to keep him calm and then proceeded to the sweet place where her 12-gauge shotgun and handgun reside.  Smart lady.  

Upon arming herself, she called 911 to get a green light from dispatch to dispatch the two dipsticks of bad intent.  Sarah is both polite and deadly... two-fer, boys.  Upon getting the nod from Nine One One, McKinley then dusted the knife wielder, and the other bandit fled the scene and was later arrested when Goofy called emergency to report his dead buddy.

This is the kind of story that we should read about more often...

...namely, the evil SOB is dead, and the innocent girl and her baby are alive, and all of this occurred because the femme fatale had the wherewithal and the knowledge to defend herself with a lethal weapon... also known as my friend, the gun.

Check it out, Diane. I guarantee that as she was sitting there alone with her tiny bambino on New Year's Eve, Sarah probably thought that things couldn't get any worse after losing her husband to lung cancer on Christmas Day.  And yet things did get worse.  But, thankfully, she was trained and had a gun.

This dire situation ended well for her and hers all because of her wood and metal amigo ... the gun.

How would you fare, my dear readers... if you were tossed in that same situation?  Would the headline read the same as dear Sarah's does, or would the perpetrator gain the upper hand because you can't or won't protect yourself, your brood and your castle?  

Good job, little lady![/color][/font][/size]