FBI-Yes, AR-15’s in school would be a good idea

Via Bearing Arms

The adoption of AR-15s for school resource officers by a district in Georgia was vilified by supporters of gun control,  but as supported by FBI Bulletin Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012, is supported as an intelligent, data-driven decision.

 The data clearly support equipping officers with patrol rifles. Many ASE sites involve open spaces or long hallways that create engagement distances beyond the ability of most officers to effectively engage a suspect with a pistol. Add this to the possibility that the officers may have to place precision fire on a suspect while avoiding hitting fleeing or injured victims, and the need for patrol rifles is clear. Additionally, about a quarter of attackers are armed with rifles. Officers ought to have firepower at least equivalent to what they will face if they go in harm’s way.

Because shooters often carry rifles and frequently shoot at officers in these events, law enforcement personnel should wear body armor that can protect them from rifle fire. This means that officers should be equipped with ballistic plates. Most of the rifle rounds used by active shooters can be stopped with type III plates, but some shooters have fired rounds that would be stopped only by type IV plates. Many of the commercially available plate carriers also have attachment points that can be used to carry other equipment, which proves useful during ASEs. This allows the plate carrier to serve as a “go bag” in addition to providing enhanced protection.

Of course, this too will be ignored by the Loony, ignorant gun grabbers who know next to nothing about guns

Let’s send the Liberals at the Washington Post a message

Bearing Arms brings us the sad tale of the Washington Post’s attempt to push the “guns are bad” line

The facts are conclusive.

Gun ownership is up tremendously. Young, urban, and female shooters are the fastest growing segments, ensuring that the next generation of gun rights advocates is not only expanding in numbers, but in spreading in geography and influence. Shooting is now an increasingly popular recreational and social pastime among family and friends.

The most popular firearms? Semi-automatic pistols, particularly those models of pistols most useful for concealed carry, are the fastest growing handgun segment. Modern sporting rifles—which are now available in more calibers, configurations, and price points than ever before—are the most popular rifles in the market. The AR-15 is the most common and popular centerfire rifle sold in the United States, year after year.

As gun ownership grows and spreads, violence crimes are down across the board. Rape, murder, armed robbery, assault and other violent crimes are on a decades-long decline. Gun accidents are down as well. Despite the endless dramatizations from the citizen control groups, you’re twice as likely to be killed by Bambi than a mass shooter.

And so perhaps it is very, very telling that on the eve of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the desperate citizen control cultists of the Washington Post are reduced to casting about for sob stories instead of making a scientific, mathematical, economic, or otherwise rational argument for citizen disarmament.

Go share your story of how you, or  a friend used a gun to defend yourself, or how much fun you have at the range, let the Post have facts, they hate that!

 

Maybe Piers Morgan should be talking about PC instead of obsessing over AR-15’s

How pathetic is our media? A mad man goes on a murderous rampage, killing 12 people, and the media’s first quest seems to be what kind of gun he used. And while they got that story wrong, largely because of their obsession with demonizing the AR-15, which is just a rifle, they continue to miss the politically correct elephant in the room. Powerline does not miss the most obvious question. How in the Hell did Aaron Alexis ever get security clearance?

According to reports, Alexis was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out the tires of a parked car. Apparently, he did so in a rage because he felt two construction workers had disrespected him.

The Seattle police said today that it referred Alexis’ case to the Seattle Municipal Court for charges of property damage and discharge of a firearm. But there’s no indication that Alexis was ever prosecuted. And a spokesperson for the Seattle City Attorney’s Office claims that it never received the report from police and so did not review the matter for possible charges.

If Alexis had been prosecuted and convicted, I don’t know that he would have gone to jail. But in a healthy, properly functioning society, he would have served time. And he certainly wouldn’t have walked due to faulty paperwork.

But let’s take Alexis’ situation one step further. If Alexis been convicted of discharging a firearm in public, prospective employers who conduct background checks (including, presumably, the Navy) would likely have learned of the conviction. Given the obvious threat posed by someone who shoots guns at cars because he feels disrespected, rational employers would have refused to hire Alexis.

But the civil rights community and the EEOC are inclined to sue employers whose criminal background check policies exclude black applicants in disproportionate numbers, which most such policies do. As an African-American, Alexis could have been a plaintiff in a private suit or a claimant in a government suit.

Gee I wonder why the media is spending less time asking about how he got the job and security clearance than about the weapon he used. Oh yes, narrative!

 

What is wrong with America? Leftists like Senator Feinstein UPDATED suspect did not have an AR-15

As i documented recently, she hates the First Amendment and wants the government to decide who is a “journalist”, and her hatred for the Second Amendment is just as strong

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is renewing her call for new gun-control laws because of Monday’s deadly Navy Yard shooting.

“When will enough be enough?” Feinstein said in a statement Monday evening.

“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Lets see here. Again, Feinstein the Statist wants to politicize tragic deaths and trample the right of self-defense. Why not look at HOW the shooter at the Naval Yards had security clearance? He had an arrest record after all, and a troubled past.

Aaron Alexis, the Navy vet suspected in the killing of 12 people at Washington’s Navy Yard, had a troubled past that included two previous arrests involving shootings and a “history of misconduct” in the Navy.

Alexis, who friends described as a convert to Buddhism, was arrested in Fort Worth in 2010 after firing a gun into his neighbor’s apartment, leaving her “terrified,” according to a police report.

In addition, he was arrested in 2004 in Seattle for shooting out the tires of a construction worker’s car in an incident he later described as “an anger-fueled blackout.”

So where is Feinstein’s call for better vetting of who is given access to military bases? What of the “multiple weapons” We know he got one of them from a security guard he killed

Two federal officials told the Associated Press that Alexis had an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun that he took from a police officer at the scene. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a pending investigation.

Apparently video shows him entering with ONLY a shotgun, so it would seem he got the “AR-15 after he shot the guard as well

Another interesting detail from NBC Washington, which is sadly relevant to the new national conversation on guns we’ll soon be having at the Democrats’ and the media’s urging:

Video also shows the gunman entered with a shotgun, News4′s Jackie Bensen reported. He shot the security guard and continued through the building, but according to what witnesses are telling investigators, by the time the shootings ended, the gunman was seen with a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle.

Authorities are investigating whether the gunman took the security guard’s service weapon – likely a 9 mm pistol – and hid in wait for the first responding D.C. police officers, who would be specially armed with AR-15s, then opened fire and shot one of the D.C. police officers in the legs. It’s unclear if the other officers assisting the wounded officer also were able to retrieve his AR-15.

Details could change, but no matter what the facts are vultures like Feinstein do not care about anything but exploiting this tragedy. They want us disarmed, and they are certainly not above lying.

UPDATE! FBI confirms no AR-15 used in Naval Yard shooting. Via Hot Air

The FBI confirms that the AR-15 was not used in the massacre

FBI Washington field office just confirmed gunman was NOT armed with AR15. Spokesperson says 1 shotgun and 2 pistols recovered

Weapons the shooter seemingly took from guards AT the scene of the shootings. I wonder if David Frum, or Piers Morgan, or Feinstein can tell us what law would have stopped this attack? Maybe if they started focusing LESS on banning guns, and more on real solutions, oh wait, who am I kidding here, that simply is not going to happen. More at Hot Air

Usually after a horrendous shooting, the conventional wisdom on what’s “really” to blame has congealed 24 hours later. Not this time. Alexis didn’t use an “assault weapon,” as you already know if you read Ed’s post. He used a shotgun, the weapon of choice of the vice president of the United States. He was, apparently, seriously mentally ill — paranoia, sleep disorder, hearing voices — but had been treated since at least last monthand hadn’t (yet?) had his Navy security clearance revoked on grounds of mental unfitness. Time magazine published a mini-bombshell last night about a Pentagon IG report that accused the Navy Yard of cutting corners on screening contractors who might pose a security risk (52 convicted felons received routine access), but as far as I know Alexis has never been convicted of a felony. On the contrary, his boss told Reuters that Alexis passed a background check in July after the firm re-hired him and that he had a “secret clearance” and a common access card for the Navy Yard. Presumably that explains how he got into the otherwise highly secure Naval Sea Systems Command building, which houses lots of classified information. Simply put, he had a right to be there.

If only the tragedy pimps were honest brokers who wanted to find out what happened BEFORE screaming for more gun laws they might actually do some good.

 

 

 

Noted bottom-feeding race pimp contracts Offendeditis over Rick Perry video

 

Heh, this picture says it all. I had to Tweet ...

Governor Perry on hearing he offended Sharpton

 

I would call Al Sharpton a festering boil on the ass of America, but that would not be fair to a festering boil.

 

On the Friday, May 3, Politics Nation, MSNBC host Al Sharpton fretted over the video that was played at Friday’s NRA convention in Houston to introduce Rick Perry which shows the Texas governor firing at targets with an AR-15. Sharpton began the segment:

Houston, we have a problem. It’s called the NRA. Today, in Houston, the NRA held its annual convention with a whose who list of the far-right pundits and politicians in the country. In fact, the NRA used a tasteless video to introduce Texas Governor Rick Perry, complete with the soundtrack and slow motion effects that showed him shooting an AR-15, the same type of gun used at Newtown.

After a clip of the Perry video, Sharpton responded:

That’s offensive. Glamorizing a weapon of murder. That’s not what Americans want. At a townhall last night in Arizona, a woman who used to work for Gabby Giffords and who was shot in the Tucson massacre praised Republican Senator John McCain for his “yes” vote on background checks.

 

Hey Al

 

middle_finger_history_Funzug.org_01

 

Couple defends themselves with AR-15, media silence is deafening

Where is the news media? Where is David Frum and his smart ass tweets mocking those who defend themselves with guns?? Oh that’s right, they ignore these inconvenient stories. Matt at Conservative Hideout does not though

The much maligned AR-15 was used to defend a couple from a home invader.  The media silence is deafening.  Mr Conservative has the details…

A couple whose names are being withheld by police were outside of their apartment on Friday, when Jasper Brisbon, who they said appeared to be on drugs, walked up and began staring at them. He did this for several minutes as the couple grew increasingly uncomfortable. Eventually, they decided to go inside of their apartment to get away from Brisbon, but he followed them.

At that point, the man grabbed his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and told Jasper Brisbon to leave. Brisbon refused his request and started moving towards him in a threatening manner. That’s when the man shot him in the chest and sent Brisbon to the ground. Afterwards, the man called police.

Just another of those stories the Left insists never happen

 

Just five minutes is all I ask

Five minutes is not a long time, but man, it would be so nice to have five minutes, to have a face-to-face discussion with Lawrence O’Donnell. I say face-to-face because I would never get a chance to talk if I ever went on his MSNBS show, The Last Word, which should be called Lawrence Rants. On the show, Lawrence, yells at and talks over anyone who dares have a Conservative viewpoint. You can watch the video of O’Donnell screaming at Gayle Trotter for daring to believe in the right to self-defense here. he shows himself to be a bully, a chauvinist who is angry apparently because Trotter does not know her  place, and most of all an intellectual coward. The very last thing O’Donnell wants is an honest debate. 

This is why a five minute meeting with Larry the Screamer would be fun. First he would not even try to bully me, second he could not be able to control the debate setting, and third, I could call him out to his face for the pompous, over bearing ass hat that he is. And he would do absolutely nothing about it, because he is nothing but a gutless wonder who bullies those that he can.

Much more at Allergic to Bull, where Lawrence and other Leftists pushing for gun control are exposed. O’Donell tried to say that no woman, or anyone period has ever used an assault weapon, a manufactured term that is meaningless, to stop a violent attacker. Aaron Worthing destroys that lie. The spin that O’Donnell used that in many cases the attackers flee when they see a gun, is also addressed.

From the accompanying article:

 
Early Tuesday morning, Christopher Boise heard a noise coming from the basement. As he walked toward the source of that noise, the RIT student noticed two men standing in the downstairs portion of his apartment.
 
“They were waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs,” said Boise.
 
One of them had a handgun trained on Boise.
 
Within moments, Boise screamed. His cries were heard by his roommate, Raymond.
 
“It wasn’t like a, ‘I stepped by stepped on a piece of glass’ kind of scream,” Raymond said.  “So, I instinctively went to my gun bag.”
 
Raymond owns an AR-15 which is a military style rifle.
 
Raymond estimated that just five seconds passed until the door started to open. It was one of the intruders.
 
“By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out,” Raymond said.
 
The two men fled the apartment.
 
Nothing was taken and no shots were fired.
 
Now, you might say, “see?  He didn’t need any bullets at all, and certainly not a high capacity clip!  After all the gun was not even loaded when they ran (as is revealed in the full article and in the video)!”  The problem with that is that clearly in this case, it was the fear factor that drove the burglars** off.  So what part of their fear was relevant?  Would any gun have worked?  Would an ordinary hunting rifle have worked?  Or did it specifically help that it was a military style rifle?  And did the burglars think, albeit erroneously, that this man could fling at them up to thirty rounds without reloading?  We might never know the answer to the question and therefore we cannot know whether a lesser weapon would have done the job.
 
And the irony of it is that allowing this young man to have an AR-15 might have saved lives.  If he had nothing, who knows what the burglars might have done.  Were they just there to rob, or kidnap?  Or maybe the burglars thought that the two young men were gay (rightly or wrong–I don’t want to suggest anything about them) and wanted to beat them up.  One of them could have been hospitalized.  One of them could have died.  Or imagine if Raymond’s weapon was not as intimidating.  Imagine the law kept him from having that AR-15, or limited the size of its magazine and the criminals knew it.  One of the criminals had a gun, too.  Would they have thought that they could take Raymond on?  Would a firefight have ensued?  One can only guess, and one can only speculate at how such a shootout might have went, but it seems unlikely that all four men would have escaped that situation without someone at least being hurt.
 
But I saved the best example of the use of Assault Rifles for defense for last.  The LA Riots:
 
This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King.  During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured.  A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.
 
On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown.  Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
 
With the cops nowhere to be found, hundreds of people marauded through the streets towards Koreatown.  The neighborhood suffered 45 percent of all the property damage and five fatalities of storeowners during the riots.  Having had enough of waiting for police, Korean storeowners assembled into militias to protect themselves, their families, and businesses.
 
According to the Los Angeles Times, “From the rooftops of their supermarkets, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets…Koreans have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against looters tide.”
 
Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people.  The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons.  Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood.
 
By the end of the day storeowners had slain four looters and fended off the mob.  It would be 24 more hours until the National Guard arrived and another two days before the riots were completely put down.  Had the riots occurred just a couple of years later when the Congress banned assault weapons, many of these storeowners may not have been so lucky. It’s situations like the LA riots, which, while being rare, can occur anywhere from the streets of Los Angeles to far off countries during the Arab Spring.
 
Assault weapons are legal for this reason: they protect people from extreme cases of assault.
 
And for bonus points, while the article doesn’t mention if they had so-called high capacity clips or not, with shooting over 500 bullets into the air, it seems reasonable to believe they used a few, doesn’t it?

There are other examples too in the post, go read it all. It is excellent!

 

Your Daley Douchebag is Joe Scraborough

Via Newsbusters

On today’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said that a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum testifying in favor of assault rifles looked “like a jackass.”

Gayle Trotter, who holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia and is the co-founder of a D.C. law firm, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.  She argued that having an assault rifle could help a woman defend herself and her children against intruders. Immediately after playing a clip of her testimony, Scarborough said: “if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.” Mika Brezezinski agreed: “I’m sorry, but that’s true.”

A jackass Joe? Really, I would say a jackass is someone who, on national TV uses a term, “assault weapon” that was not even in existence until 1989, when gun control zealots invented it to stir up fear. I would say a jackass is someone who mocks a woman for having an opinion. And I would say a jackass is someone who refuses to defend Trotter’s main point which is that a weapon like an AR-15 CAN be a very good one for a woman in defending her home. I would hope that Joe would at least offer to shed some reality on the subject. Of course, I would also say jackass applies to your co-host Mika, who laughs, as if what Trotter says is just the most ridiculous things she has ever heard. Mika, of course is a special case, a woman who simply lives in her own little bubble world where things like reality do not apply. She is a hateful woman, and there is Scarborough, licking her feet everyday, looking very much like the poster boy for wimpy men every day. I bet Joe owns LOTS of sweater vests, just sayin’.

 

Student uses AR-15 to ward off armed attackers Piers Morgan’s propaganda hardest hit

Oh no, I sure hope this story does not hamper Piers Morgan’s “Hey Everybody, Look at Me” Tour!

While Democrats attempt to ban “military-style assault weapons” like the AR-15, a Rochester Institute of Technology student used that very gun to thwart home invaders and save his roommate’s life. Article from Breitbart:

Christopher Boise heard noises in the basement of his apartment; when he went to investigate, he found two intruders. One of the men trained a gun on him. Boise screamed, which woke his roommate, Raymond, who grabbed his gun bag and took out his AR-15. 

One invader opened Raymond’s door only to see the barrel of the gun. 

“By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out,” Raymond said. 

The men fled the apartment without taking anything. No shots were fired in the confrontation. 

“I’m happy he saved my life. I was very thankful he had his (gun),” said Boise. 

A few weeks ago, a 15-year old boy used his father’s AR-15 to stop two home invaders when he and his sister were home alone.

There are likely many such stories, the media, however, is loathe to publicize them.

 

The Left and guns. Why the Left cannot bridge their reality gap

The Left has long embraced the wish to ban some, or all guns. There are really only two reasons in play here. For those in power, like Dianne Feinstein, the wish to revive the “assault weapons”ban is based in starting us down the road to an outright ban, and eventually, I believe, confiscation. Feinstein’s motives do not come from a lack of knowledge about guns. She knows the term assault weapon is ridiculous, and she knows it is about ginning up an emotionally driven image of fully automatic machine guns in the minds of Liberals, and other Americans who are ignorant of what a “semi-automatic” gun is. So-called assault weapons look scary to those who are not familiar with guns. In fact an assault rifle, like the dreaded and demonized AR-15 are just rifles with scary looking features, like a pistol grip, or a larger magazine. Feinstein and her ilk know that they can show these weapons, and throw around the term semi-automatic, and frighten people. They do this in hopes of turning public opinion towards supporting first an assault weapons ban. then, when this law proves a failure, they can then focus on all semi-automatic guns. Of course most guns ARE semi-automatic, so, you see where this road leads.

For those who support “reasonable gun laws” as if we have no gun laws on the books, their support comes from ignorance, and emotional reactions to gun violence. We all know that when we react emotionally, we tend to make mistakes, except of course while we are emoting like there is no tomorrow. That is exactly what the likes of Dianne Feinstein want. This story, from Fontana, California, has some great examples of how ignorant many are about not just guns, but about self-defense as well.

The Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchased 14 AR-15 assault weapons to protect students in response to recent shootings across the country, but some school leaders and citizens think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.

Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”

Warren said, “Everyone wants children safe. At this time, we as a community, we have to come together and find other ways. But in the interim, our police officers need to be equipped.”

On these opening paragraphs we see the media plying along with the emotionally charged terms. Note they call AR-15’s assault weapons, when in fact they are simply rifles. The truth is that police feel that having such arms at hand will help them prevent, or stop a school shooting. The tactical merits of the plan can be legitimately debated, but listen to how a school board member, obviously driven by an emotions reacts.

School board member Sophia Green, however, doesn’t believe anyone will be safer if weapons are kept inside schools.

“If a person who has the intention of coming on campus to kill… knows we have the AR-15s…they might come with something even bigger or better. They will come prepared,” she said.

This is the classic Liberal response to fighting crime. They scoff at the notion that anyone can defend themselves. Of course this fallacy is driven by Liberal rhetoric, and a news media that exploits mass shootings, and ignores the tens of thousands of times Americans use guns to defend themselves against violent criminals. To Ms. Green, it is incomprehensible that a school shooter could be stopped by a good guy armed with a weapon. To her all guns are bad. All gun uses are bad, and all who carry or own guns are bad. I would bet that she believes the Liberal lie that all violence is equal. Liberal gun control groups use these lies all the time. Lumping all gun deaths together, even when police, or law-abiding Americans shoot violent criminals. Their stats are meant to skew our perception. Their other favorite trick is to exclude times when armed citizens use their gun to defend themselves by brandishing their weapon, or firing a warning shot. Such cases make up over 90 % of defensive gun uses. So, excluding these shrinks the number of what I call positive gun uses.

Another Liberal voice is cited in the article

Anna Conklin, a child development specialist, also opposed storing the guns on school grounds. She told KCAL9′s Dave Bryan that a counseling program would be a better way to address violence on campus.

“Children aren’t born with a gun in their hand and vengeance in their mind. They aren’t necessarily going to grow into being a killer. We, as a society, need to address why children are growing up to commit these acts as teens and adults. I don’t see how adding more weapons on a campus is addressing that,” Conklin said.

A counseling program? For what? To help grief-stricken students deal with another tragic incident? I have no issue with counseling, but it has nothing to do with preventing school shootings. Neither does disarming the good guys. More guns on campus, if they are in the hands of the good guys is a good thing. Certainly gun-free zones is an idea that has failed miserably. Again, a Liberal assigns blame and responsibility to inanimate objects rather than to those who use those objects. Again, this is the all violence is equal, all guns are bad nonsense. The Liberal sheep who drink the Kool-Aid Dianne Feinstein serves them have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by the likes of Feinstein. Feinstein, and her fellow Statists need useful idiots like the two women in the story above to help push their agenda through. This is why education is so important my friends. People who know about guns do not fall for the lies Feinstein spins

 

Could Scarborough possibly be a bigger tool?

Smitty poses this today but that has to be a trick question though right?

The former Republican Congressman sneered at the National Rifle Association, suggesting that the gun group is promoting the “big lie” that government will come after most guns.

Scarborough insisted the “the big lie has worked for years.” He added, “…If they take away your military-style assault weapons, take away the AR-15, they’re going to take your hunting rifle, they’re gonna take your handgun, which of course is a big lie.”

It’s like this, you schmuck: while the destruction of liberty continues ‘at a medium pace’, no rational observers doubt that this is what is going on. Scarborough, your Neville Chamberlain-esque reassurances excite no one, with the possible exception of Chris Matthews.

Scarborough is a fraud, he sounds different far different from the mid 1990’s when he serve in the House. Now, he is simply a “Republican” in permanent token status at MSNBS. He is gutless.

Bill Quick and other bloggers try to educate Liberals on gun control and guns like the AR-15

 

A noble venture Bill, of course Liberals, well, most of them will not listen, and the gun grabbers who lie about “assault weapons” and everything else in the gun debate will not stop lying. As Bill puts it

And make no mistake: what these tools really want is gun proscription and confiscation. Bloomberg, Obama, and the Brady Gang of Gun Banners may talk about “sensible gun control laws,” but what they are after is complete eradication. Because that is the only possibility they can see to answer their biggest problem: the places where guns are banned in America have some of the highest gun homicide and other crime rates in the nation.

At Captain’s Journal, Glen has a great case for NOT banning guns, as the Left wishes to do.

Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

And what of Great Britain, which also banned guns?

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Got that? The U.S. is not even close to those nations. Yet the Left continues to lie and say we are “the most violent” nation.

Sebastian, at Shall Not Be Questioned has a cool graphic explaining that the AR-15 is just a rifle

Why You Can’t Trust Gun Control Advocates | Shall Not Be Questioned

I found one of them peddling this bit around, so like a grade school teacher, I have marked it up in read and corrected the ignorance, inaccuracies, and distortions: