Emotion, emotion, and more emotion fueled by gun control propaganda.
Emotion, emotion, and more emotion fueled by gun control propaganda.
Crime, it does not pay
If you’re going to break into a jewelry story, make certain that the owner isn’t there, especially if he happens to be pretty handy with a shotgun:
A jewelry store owner shoots and kills a suspected thief breaking in Monday morning. Just before 1 a.m. police say Robert Trevino, 41, broke the glass door of Harper’s Fine Jewelry with a hammer.
Elgin Police Chief Chris Bratton says the owner, Juan Torres, happened to be in the back of the store.
“The owner was in the back room when the suspect broke out the front door using a hammer and was attempting to go through the jewelry cases,” said Bratton.
Torres fired a 12-gauge shotgun hitting Trevino in the neck. He died inside the store.
“As best we can tell the suspect turned toward the owner with something in his hand which we found out was the hammer and then he shot him one time killing him instantly,” said Bratton.
The store owner was defending himself it would seem, but, Bob Owens points out that he might be in some hot water for firing on the thief’s accomplices
After turning Trevino’s neck into a pink mist, Torres preceded outside, where he opened fire on Trevino’s accomplices in the getaway car. Sulema Sanchez and Amanda Yanes were mildly wounded by broken glass from Torres’s shots, and both are in the Bastrop County Jail on burglary charges.
Torres’s shooting of Trevino seems easily justifiable under castle doctrine. His decision to leave the store and fire upon accomplices might end up putting him on the wrong side of the law.
If you ever face a similar circumstance, it would be wiser to stay inside from both tactical and legal perspectives.
Absolutely. He ought to have stayed IN his store, and used lethal force IF he was attacked further. The object is always to stop the threat, going beyond that puts in a gray area legally. Be smart!
Bearing Arms has an update on another aspect of how disastrous Fast and Furious was
Let me be clear: Operation Fast and Furious was never about trying to interdict and take down drug cartels. It was thought to have been about providing some small bit of truth to the 90-percent lie told by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder, in order to justify another attempt at a federal “assault weapon” ban.
There were no mechanisms at all to track the thousands of firearms that straw purchasers and low-level smugglers—at least some of whom were federal government informants—bought in the United States and then smuggled back across the border to arm narco-terrorists.
New reports now prove that in addition to the 300+ deaths caused by Fast and Furious guns south of the border, guns are now flowing back northward as cartels extend their reach northward across a border that the federal government refuses to defend:
Smugglers from Arizona being monitored through the U.S. government’s Operation Fast and Furious helped supply firearms to a gun-trafficking ring led by officials in Columbus, N.M., according to court documents.
Court documents also provide additional details on the extent of the Columbus conspirators’ involvement with Mexican drug traffickers and La Linea enforcers of the Carrillo Fuentes drug cartel.
According to one of the court documents, Border Patrol agents looking for a stolen vehicle stopped Blas Gutierrez, a former Columbus Village trustee, and Miguel Carrillo, a gun straw purchaser, in Columbus on Jan. 14, 2010. The two men, who were later convicted in the federal case against 11 Columbus conspirators, were not arrested that day.
The Border Patrol agents who stopped Gutierrez and Carrillo reported that they had found eight firearms inside the 2004 Nissan, including three Romarm Cugir pistols, two Ruger P345 pistols and three Fabrique National de Herstal pistols.
An investigation later determined that the three Fabrique Nationale de Herstal pistols had been purchased Jan. 9, 2010 in Arizona by Jaime Avila, one of the arms-trafficking conspiracy ringleaders who was being monitored by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Avila was one of the main suspects in the ATF’s centerpiece case for Fast and Furious.
The court document stated that the three Romarm Cugir pistols found on Gutierrez and Carrillo that day “were bought (on) an unlisted date by another straw purchaser identified as Uriel Patino, also of Phoenix.” Patino was another ATF target in Operation Fast and Furious. Patino was a co-defendant with Jaime Avila.
And yes, I agree with Bob Owens, this WAS about getting more gun control laws passed. Think about that, I do not care what your opinion of guns is, just think about that.
If a government passes a law, and nobody obeys, what is that government to do?
When Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the “toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year, his administration estimated between 372,000 and 400,000 firearms would be registered and about 2 million magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The registration requirement kicked in on Jan. 1 – more than four months ago.
To date, about 50,000 “assault weapons” have been registered – less than 15 percent – and only 38,000 “high-capacity” magazines have been registered – or about 2 percent.
This has liberals – led by the leftist Hartford Courant – in a rage. In a Valentine’s Day editorial, the newspaper said state police should comb the state and federal background check databases to find those millions of scofflaws and… well, arrest them.
The Courant doesn’t say this outright, they argue that the state should find these people, but since violating the new law is a felony, and “felonies cannot go unenforced.”
“A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” they write. “if you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
What the newspaper is afraid to call for outright is the imprisonment of tens of thousands of gun and high-capacity magazine owners in the state. Throw them in prison for merely owning a weapon or magazine.
Luckily, Gov. Malloy is a little brighter than the good people at the Courant. Sending state troopers descending on thousands of gun owners can not end well. Some folks – even folks in Connecticut – are inclined to believe their Second Amendment Right is inalienable and would react rather negatively if somebody attempted to disarm them.
So that’s out. What about threatening them with criminal charges? That’s out too. The new law already classifies them as felons and they don’t seem to mind.
So what is Malloy likely to do? Nothing. Pretend the law doesn’t even exist and try to move on. Of course, this just proves what we’ve already known: tyrants are toothless against an armed and educated populace.
Yes, even when they are in the military. Case in point Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who wrote pack of lies and distortions after the recent Ft. Hood shootings
What is not working, as Secretary Hagel formulated it, is America’s gun culture. All of these mass shootings took place with privately owned weapons purchased without any sort of serious screening or taken from their rightful owners — a mother or a father, by theft or murder. In essence, you can be a complete and total nutcase and acquire a gun pretty easily. You can even purchase one yourself, provided you do not have a criminal record. Or if you have an IQ over 70 and can drive yourself to a gun show, you can buy one there even if you do have a criminal record.* No matter what, you can have a gun. Period.
Purchased without ANY serious screening? An FBI background check is not serious? Give us a break. As far as a mad man murdering to get a gun, or stealing one, I do not know what Col. Bateman would suggest, well besides trampling American’s inherent right to own guns, which, of course would do nothing but raise the number of violent crimes. Of course, Bateman has to throw in the bogus :gun show loophole lie, as all good gun control types do. The fact is if you are a licensed firearms dealer, you MUST, under federal law, run background check, and Bateman damn well knows that.
This is not, nor should it be, about “American soldiers should carry guns on post.” I guarantee that some lunatics will propose that, claiming that soldiers on military posts always used to have guns on post but that they were “disarmed” by this president or that one. No, the fact is that American soldiers, sailors, and marines never carried their military weapons on post except when training, with the exception of the military police.
No one has suggested any such thing. No one, I repeat NO ONE has suggested soldiers carry their “military weapons on base. WE have suggested, we including survivors of the first Ft. Hood shooting, have suggested that soldiers with concealed carry permits be able to carry their PERSONAL firearms on base. Another lie but Bateman has more
Last month I was traveling, in part with my wife and daughter, and I began to notice something. There were a lot more concealed weapons there than I remember seeing before. Four times in the space of just a few days I noticed men carrying pistols under their shirts, in restaurants, stores, and even in a children’s play area of a shopping mall. This craze, which seems new to me because I have been serving overseas for so long, is taking place not just on the streets or in bars,** but in family restaurants and places where we all shop. So that is a part of the solution.
Bateman must have X-Ray vision. I mean he can see things that are concealed What a great super power he has. It goes great with his ability to fabricate “facts”.
What we need to dois make owning guns impractical for everyone. The simple solution for this is not a new law or judicial ruling. It is “voting” with our wallets.
I started to do it last week when I was in a nice seafood restaurant that had food that was so good I was thinking of writing it up and also telling my friends about the place. As an out-of-the-way joint, they could certainly use the free publicity, though they certainly pulled in their share of locals for a blustery Sunday morning. Then I saw the guns.
He saw the “guns”? Doe she mean he saw random guns wondering around the parking lot? Or maybe he used that X-Ray vision super power again, or maybe he is simply a liar.
Nope, not going to do it, I decided on the spot. And I am also not going to bring my kids or my wife in there ever again until they decide that guns are not allowed in their restaurant. And that, friends, is the solution. Not confrontation with the gun owners, not legislation by politicians beholden to the big money of the NRA, just a simple statement to the owners and managers of every store, every chain, every restaurant where you see somebody carrying a concealed weapon: “I am never coming back to this store until you ban guns on your property.”
Well, any business can choose for itself, but really now, a serious question for Col. Bateman. How many times has a person with a permit to carry concealed gone mad and shot up a mall, restaurant, or park? Go ahead and look that up Mr. Bateman, I can wait. The fact is that type of thing DOES NOT HAPPEN. But there are plenty of examples of people, intent on doing evil, arming themselves ILEGALLY and walking right past the “guns banned here” signs Bateman calls for. I have three words for Lt. Col. Bateman, they fit perfectly. Stuck on Stupid!
The fact is that violent crime does not rise, and usually decreases in states with concealed carry. Another fact is that guns are used more often, FAR more often in self defense, than to commit some heinous act. As well, ten of millions of Americans own guns, and never do anything wrong with those guns, and again, many of them DO defend themselves with their firearms. Likewise millions of Americans with concealed carry permits never cause any harm, yet the gun control zealots wish to smear them anyway. And finally, I trust a soldier with a carry permit far more than I trust a zealot like Lt. Col. Bateman
Took my S&W M&P 9MM to the range today, and put 150 rounds through it. And, all 150 were in the 8-10 rings and 138 hit in the 9 or 10. It was nice, as I was the only one on the short side (15 yard) of the range, so I just locked in and had fun.
I have watched some reviews on the M&P and some of those are really tough on this gun’s trigger, one even called it awful. Sorry, I do not agree with that. It is a very good trigger to me. When I first fired the gun it took a bit to really “get” the trigger, it felt a bit light at first, but after 100 rounds or so, I really like this trigger. This gun is a joy to shoot, recoil is minimal, so firing rapidly and staying accurate is a breeze. My last 14 shots, were from 5 yards and I just ripped them as fast as I could, and all found the 9-10 rings. Of course, gun opinions and opinions about triggers are subjective, so what I like, others might not, but how anyone bashes this trigger system escapes me. Here is my target
OK, let me clear up the dangerous part of the title. After I had finished, I went back in the pro shop to return my eyes and ears, and pick up some solvent since my Rem Oil is about used up. I bought some Break Free CLP if you want to know. I used to use Hoppes 9 but that stuff tears up my hands, but anyway, back to the danger of picking up a new gun.
As I was waiting to pay for my cleaner, I was talking to one of the guys that run the place, and in the gun case right in front of me was a Ruger SR 40 C. I asked if I could see it and let me say, it felt so good in my hand, light, and very ergonomic and the trigger is supposed to be one of the very best. So, that is the danger, now I want one, and they run between $450 and $500, so it is an affordable semi-auto. It comes with a 9 round mag, and a 15 round mag as well. With the 10 round mag it is a good carry size. By the way I just corrected the mag sizes, I had previously listed the 9MM mag capacities, 10, and 17 my mistake
Here it is,
and it also comes, for more money of course in a TALO edition, which really looks sharp. Do I “need” another gun? No, but man I like this one
In recent months more Detroit homeowners have taken matters into their own hands, shooting suspected intruders on-site and, in some cases, killing them.
For example, three cases of homeowners shooting suspected intruders have been reported in the past five weeks.
In early March, a 17-year-old was fatally shot outside a home on Penrod Street. On March 25, a homeowner with a valid concealed weapons license fatally shot two suspected intruders at his home on Dexter. Earlier this week a homeowner shot two suspected intruders, killing a 15-year-old.
In those cases, the homeowners are not facing charges.
Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality believes in self defense but says these “vigilantees” have gone too far.
“Certainly people have a right to defend themselves in their home but they do not have a right to make it a free-fire zone, and the chief, or his spokesperson, should never put that in the minds of people. We must operate not on the basis of fear but on the basis of understanding and how we as a community can come together to stop the violence,” he says.
This idiot really ought to read the definition of vigilante is. And what the heck he means by “free-fire zones” is beyond me. Basically he is demonizing anyone who uses deadly force to defend their lives as lawless killers. And he can flap his gums about “fear” and “understanding” all day long, but the only people responsible for these shootings are the thugs who decided they were entitled to break in people’s homes and threaten their lives.
Here is more about Ron Scott that explains his pro-criminal bias. From his bio at Huff PO
Ron Scott was a member of the Detroit Chapter of the Black Panther Party and has been actively involved on the ground level here in Detroit and across the nation over 40 years fighting for the human rights of people of color. He is a member of the Boggs Center Board, an active member of Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, a Detroit Community organizer/activist and co-host a radio show here in Detroit.
At the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality website there are some links to some interesting sites, including one to “Free Mumia” a heinous cop killer who the far Left has embraced. You can read them all here Lots of the links are old and no longer work, and the site itself was last updated in 2012. Maybe Scott is just searching for some publicity so he can get back in the race pimping game?
Well, I ought to be more specific I suppose. Since many government agencies are pretty much useless, or at least bloated and wasteful. In this case the ATF is being sued by Sig, as Bob Owens reports
This is the Sig Sauer MPX, a modern submachine gun designed for military and law enforcement use, or in semi-automatic form, available for purchase as an NFA item as a SBR (short barreled rifle).
Thanks to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, no civilian can purchase the selective-fire version of the MPX, and most people won’t opt to go through the excruciatingly long (and getting longer) process of obtaining the SBR through the NFA process.
In order to sell the MPX to the civilian market, the MPX-C was created, which will be a semi-automatic with a 6.5′ barrel with 9.5″ muzzle brake permanently attached to get it up to the legal barrel length minimum of 16″ so that it can be sold as a conventional rifle without the headaches of going through the NFA process.
Or at least that was the plan, before the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (the same idiots who have classified string and airsoft guns as machine guns, and who have been harassing EP Armory and Ares Armor with seemingly arbitrary rulings). The ATF has now told Sig that the MPX-C’s muzzle break constitutes a “silencer,” even though it does not reduce sound, and in fact makes the gun louder as it vents gasses to control recoil.
Sig sees this determination costing the company millions in lost revenue, and is now taking the ATF to court:
Go read the rest
This is where these “common sense” gun laws get us folks. The Left writes laws designed to ban certain gun on their looks, and aesthetics not their lethality. And no I am not suggesting that any legislative body in America ought to ban guns based on lethality. The Left would make a mockery of that process as well. Of course, that is the game isn’t it? That is the aim. The Left lies, creating fear by throwing around made up terms like “assault weapon” or they try to convince Americans that they are just targeting “weapons of war” when in fact they are targeting entire classes of weapons.
And I mean the WRONG house
It takes a special kind of stupid to attempt to rob the same house several times over the course of a few days, but rather obviously, Raynee D. Moore and his two teen-aged accomplices are that kind of stupid:
The homeowners saw the motion lights come on around 1:50 a.m. and heard sounds in the garage. They stepped out and emptied the can of bear spray into the garage. The burglars broke out a window and ran from the garage. However, one of them, a 17-year-old boy armed with a machete, was confronted in the front yard by one of the residents, armed with a shotgun.
The resident said he yelled at the suspect twice to stop, but the teenager moved toward him. The resident then fired his shotgun toward the fence as a warning, the release said. The boy immediately dropped the weapon and backpack he was carrying and laid down on the ground.
Deputies arrived to find the boy bound with zip ties, the release said. An air pistol was recovered from the scene. The teenager was arrested and booked into Spokane County Jail on burglary charges. On Tuesday night, investigators found and arrested a second suspect in the burglary, Raynee D. Moore, 19. Moore was also booked on suspicion of felony burglary.
Here is a hint to bad people. Do not break in someone house, or you might end up dead from lead!
The criminal class in Detroit doesn’t appear to be getting any smarter, but it is certainly continuing to get smaller.
Police say a Detroit homeowner opened fire on two home invasion suspects Wednesday morning, fatally wounding one.
Detroit police Sgt. Michael Woody says the two 19-year-old suspects, a male and a female, broke into the home on the 19000 block of Asbury Park just before 6 a.m. Woody says the 47-year-old homeowner fired several shots with a rifle, striking both suspects after they broke a window and tried to get in.
The male was transported to a local hospital and pronounced dead, Woody says. The female suspect was struck in the leg, transported and listed in critical condition.
The homeowner wasn’t injured.
The Wayne County prosecutor’s office is expected to review the incident, but Woody says it appears to be another case of a Detroit homeowner defending his property.
The academic journal Applied Economics Letters isn’t exactly know for writing viral headlines for its articles, which is perhaps why Quinnipiac University’s Mark Gius’s An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates isn’t being shouted from the rooftops by every gun owner in the land.
It’s a very short paper, with stunning conclusions (my bold):
Results are presented on Table 1. The CCW dummy variable is significant and positive, but the assault weapons ban is insignificant. Given that the average gun-related murder rate over the period in question was 3.44, the results of the present study indicate that states with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher. In addition, the Federal assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicating that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal ban was in effect. These results corroborate the findings of Lott and Mustard (1997). These results suggest that, even after controlling for unobservable state and year fixed effects, limiting the ability to carry concealed weapons may cause murder rates to increase. There may, however, be other explanations for these results. Laws may be ineffective due to loopholes and exemptions. The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area.
Yes, you read that correctly.
States that have restrictive “may issue” or “no issue” concealed carry laws between 1980-2009 had a 10% higher gun murder rate than those states that required no permit at all, or who had “shall issue” permitting.
Restrictive concealed carry laws appear to lead to more deaths.
This is why disarming American citizens will lead to more death and carnage.
Sounds like he was intent on doing some bad deeds, and he got what he deserved
AUTAUGA CO., AL (WSFA) -
One person is dead and a second is under arrest after a robbery early Friday morning in Autauga County in which the homeowner fired shots.
Authorities say 18-year-old Marbury resident Mikel Steven Smith of Marbury was killed when he tried to force his way into a home overnight in the Booth community.
According to Autauga County Chief Deputy Joe Sedinger, Smith was armed with a knife when he tried to break into the home on County Road 81. Sedinger said the female homeowner feared for her safety, and for that of her niece, when she fired several shots at the intruder.
“He knocked on the door and tried to gain entrance by saying he needed help that he was broke down,” Sedinger explained. “When she came to the door, he pushed the door open. She said when he came in her house with the knife, she shot him.”
Responding officers found Smith’s body about 30 feet away from the home. He was pronounced dead shortly after 12:30 a.m. Drag marks lead investigators to believe another person was involved and a second ‘person of interest’ was taken into custody later Friday morning.
I am sure the gun grabbers will be pissed at this news
A 53-year-old South Austin man with a valid concealed carry permit was able to shoot at two men who tried to accost him outside of his home early this morning.
The incident happened about 2:40 a.m. on the 5400 block of West Van Buren Street, said Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan.
The man was walking from his garage to the front of his home when two males in hoodies appeared in a gangway between his home and the neighbor’s home, Sullivan said.
One of the two men pulled a handgun from his waistband and pointed at the man who took out his own gun and managed to fire several times at the males, Sullivan said.
The males fled the area without being struck and the shooting did not result in any property damage, police said.
After the shooting, police responded and determined that the man was shooting in self-defense. The man had a valid firearm owner’s identification card, a valid concealed carry permit and police were able to determine that he had completed a required concealed carry class and was properly trained, Sullivan said.
Had this been a few months ago, this man would likely be a crime stat right now. And if he had been armed, he would likely be in jail given Chicago’s draconian gun laws.
Due the the tyrannical actions of Andrew Cuomo and his allies in the state legislature, New York residents are required to register an estimated 1 million firearms designated as “assault weapons” under the NY SAFE Act by April 15.
Unfortunately for the Governor and his allies, it appears that the open revolt of most of the state’s law enforcement leaders against NY SAFE—who correctly view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional assault on the state constitution and the Second Amendment—means that noncompliance is overwhelming.
While NY State Police refuse to publicly share the number of firearms that have been registered (citing a provision of the NY SAFE Act itself), leaks purporting to be from within the agency suggest that compliance might be as low as just 3,000-5,000 firearms. There is no way to conclusively verify this paltry figure which suggests that 99.5% of New Yorkers are thumbing their noses at Albany, but it may very well be a credible figure.
I am resisting my inherent desire to roll on the floor and laugh at Cuomo and his fellow tyrants here. There is something else at play here. Law enforcement in New York is not too ken on this law either
Gun owners in New York are well aware of the fact that their county sheriffs, state police, and local officers don’t intend to enforce the law, a stance that many law enforcement leaders have announced publicly.
Knowing that the chief law enforcement officers in most counties have announced that they will not enforce the law, a non-compliance rate exceeding 95% and perhaps exceeding 98% does indeed seem plausible.
As New York Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R-Pittsford) noted previously:
“The rank and file troopers don’t want anything to do with it,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R-Pittsford) said Monday. “I don’t know of a single sheriff upstate who is going to enforce it.”
“If you don’t have the troopers and you don’t have the sheriffs, who have you got? You’ve got Andrew Cuomo pounding on the table in Albany,” Nojay said.
Well, I suppose Governor Cuomo is due for some more table pounding then. Here is to you Governor
We were told that Lopez had been diagnosed with PTSD, and was on a cocktail of meds. Yet he never saw combat, was in Iraq for only four months, never coming under fire, so the diagnosis of PTSD made no sense to me. Then there is this “The underlying medical conditions are not believed to be the precipitating event to the actual shooting,” Lt. Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the base. “The precipitating event we think was probably this argument, some sort of argument that occurred.“
So, an argument is what may have ignited this situation?
Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Amy Criminal Investigation Command, said during the press conference the investigation into the shooting remained open. He said the precipitating verbal argument was with soldiers from Lopez’s unit and that some of the soldiers involved in the argument were victims.
He also said the shooting occurred at multiple locations and that Lopez drove in a vehicle shooting indiscriminately at other soldiers. “All evidence” points to Lopez acting alone, Grey said, but no possibility has been ruled out.
If Lopez, just lost it, and shot the men, from Lopez’s unit, why would he continue firing randomly apparently, wounding 16 and killing three? Sorry, I have to question what role his mental state, he had been diagnosed with PTSD yet, played. And yes, I certainly wonder if the meds he was taking were a large part of this.
On Thursday, Army Secretary John McHugh said during a congressional hearing on Capitol Hill that Lopez, who was an Army truck driver and had served in Iraq, was under medical treatment and had been prescribed several medications, including the sleep aid Ambien.
He was in the process of being potentially diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, but none of his doctors saw any warning signs in his most recent visits. “The plan forward was to just continue to monitor and treat him as deemed appropriate,” McHugh said.
Lots of questions are still to be answered. But Bob Owens makes a good point about how gun grabbers like Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action might be perfectly willing to use PTSD as a reason to disarm our vets
Likewise, it was known on the night of the shooting (April 2) that Ivan Lopez was a soldier that never saw combat. He served one four-month deployment to Iraq, and was never under fire. He was never wounded, and had not received a Purple Heart. He was being treated for anxiety and depression, neither of which were related to combat.
Nonetheless, Watts decided to smear every servicemen who actually saw the horrors of war and suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Injuries, as part of an apparent anti-gun “long game” of smearing combat wounded veterans in order to disarm them.
She’s pushed this smear twice… and she’s probably not done.
First, Watts, posted this claim two days after it was known that Lopez was never diagnosed with PTS and had never seem combat.
Something that has worried me since the Left began harping on “mental health” and background checks is how far they are willing to go to use mental health to bar some, especially vets, from firearm ownership. The goal of the Shannon Watts of America is, I believe, to disarm us by any means necessary. And smearing out vets, and using PTSD is apparently included in their campaign of misinformation.
Just as a side note. I do wonder what role psychiatric drugs play in mass shootings, and other violent crimes as well. I think we live in an over diagnosed, over medicated society. These drugs have their place, and many doctors are very responsible when prescribing them. But others are too quick to write a prescription, or two, or more. It is crucial that everyone, especially our vets get the help, whatever that is they need. And if it is a prescription drug, fine. But these drugs are, like many other things, can be dangerous if not prescribed, or taken, responsibly. I have seen people who take anti-depressants have drastic personality changes when they accidentally over-medicated themselves.
One last thing from Bob Owens, who like me, is a fierce defender of both our right to self-defense, and of our vets and military. You should read this about PTSD, it is important
J.R. Salzman, a world-class athlete, author, IED survivor with post-traumatic stress injuries, does a good job of describing what PTS really is… and it isn’t violent aggression.
Go READ THIS!
How good of a shot some can be under pressure is the last thing he ever learned, shortly after midnight.
An Autauga County woman shot and killed an intruder who forced his way into her home early Friday morning, said Chief Deputy Joe Sedinger.
The incident occurred on County Road 81 in the Booth community, about 12:30 a.m., sheriff reports show. Deputies were dispatched to the home on a burglary in progress call, Sedinger said.
“When they arrived they found an 18-year-old man shot,” Sedinger said. “At this time our investigation shows that the man, who was armed with a knife, had forced his way into the home. The homeowner shot him with a revolver, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.”
The man has been identified as Mikel Steven Smith, 18, of Marbury, courthouse records show. Sheriff’s office reports show Smith was shot three times with a .32 cal. handgun.
California State Rep. Jackie Speier, a democrat of course, is calling on President Obama to ban the importation of all foreign-made firearms, and her reason defies logic. Because of Leland Yee’s arrest last week, where her fellow democrat was accused of trying to import illegal machine guns and rocket launchers, Speier thinks we should stop the importation of legal semi-automatic rifles.
Speier released a statement yesterday, blissfully unaware of her hypocrisy and apples-to-oranges comparison:
“This FBI investigation of Leland Yee reveals how easy it is to import lethal assault weapons that were previously banned. This case should be a warning to us all that even the most trusted appearing among us are ready to do real harm. Since Congress can pass no meaningful gun-control laws, even after the mass killing in Newtown, President Obama should use his pen to slow the import of these weapons, which have no place in our homes.”
The FBI investigation had nothing to do with the import of weapons that were previously banned. Yee is accused of trying to bring in full-auto rifles and shoulder-fire rockets. These things have always been banned.
What she is confusing here is the Clinton-era ban on imported semi-auto rifles. Under George W. Bush that ban was allowed to expire. Military-grade weapons and consumer-level firearms are not the same thing. Speier is purposefully erasing the line to push further gun ownership limitations on the people.
In addition, the FBI investigation does not show how easy it is to import illegal guns. It was a complex criminal organization involved in this scheme. Your average Joe would not be able to get the Chinese Triads to ship him a case of M4 rifles or Javelin missiles. Even the legal importation of semi-auto rifles is beyond an average person’s ability. It requires a license and all kinds of hoops to jump through.
Best line in her rant: This case should be a warning to us all that even the most trusted appearing among us are ready to do real harm.
What she must mean are that democrat gun grabbers can’t be trusted because I can’t think of one Republican that ever tried to raise campaign funds by selling illegal weapons. I fail to see how the dishonesty and hypocrisy of democrats should lead to a further erosion of the 2nd Amendment. Also, she should speak for herself; I never trusted Yee.
There is a subtle little twist in the gun grabber’s rhetoric included as well. Usually, the enemies of freedom like to say these guns don’t belong on our streets. Speier has switched it up and says they “have no place in our homes.” I sense this is a shift in strategy by the anti-gun crowd to convince us that not only don’t we not have a right to protect ourselves in public, but that we no longer enjoy that protection at home.
Lelenad Yee did a bad bad thing. He tried to illegally import weapons that themselves were illegal. Leave it to a democrat to use this situation as a reason to halt the legal importation of legal firearms.
All we want are a few sensible gun laws they say. Well, let’s see, there are thousands of gun laws across the country. These are laws that bad people, or deranged people ignore to commit crimes. Let us look at Ft. Hood
The military pretty much bans soldiers possessing guns on base. In short military bases are “gun free zones”. The idea behind a gun free zone is that it will make those in that zone safe. It is one of those “sensible” laws the gun control zealots call for. Well, Ivan Lopez broke that law, and went on a shooting spree. What? You mean bad guys do not obey laws? His victims were, or course, obeying the law, and were thus far easier targets. So, in this case, as in the previous, deadlier Ft. Hood shooting, the gun free zone failed to prevent anything.
Yet, still, gun control advocates scream for more gun free zones, and scream even louder when anyone suggests that people, yes, including our military be allowed to carry guns. The gun control advocates mock the idea that mass shootings can ever be stopped by a “good guy with a gun”. Yet, what stopped the killing spree by Lopez? An MP, with a GUN did. Lopez chose to shoot himself when met with equal force. Many of the mass shooters have done the same by the way. Some of these shooters were stopped by concealed carry permit holders. Yet, gun control fools like Piers Morgan continue to mock the “good guy with a gun” argument.
They will dismiss the very idea that anyone has ever stopped or prevented a mass shooting with a concealed carry weapon. If the “good guy” is a current or former police officer, the Left dismisses it. If the “good guy” is a security officer, they dismiss it. If the good guy holds the shooter at bay the Left dismisses it. If the shooter kills himself when confronted the Left dismisses it. In short, the Left will never admit to any fact that challenges their narrative.
Today, author and Crime Prevention Research Center Pres. John Lott was interviewed on WMAL’s Morning’s On The Mall with Larry O’Connor and Brian Wilson to discuss the effete policy of gun-free zones. It’s an issue that’s thrust itself back into the spotlight in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Fort Hood last night.
Once again, members of our military were left defenseless because of this nonsensical gun control policy, Lott said:
I mean, I hope people would just reevaluate these gun-free zones, in general. I mean, at some point, I just wish the media once in a while would go and say – when they go through all the other things, like where the person may have obtained a gun; whether they had mental illness. Often the easiest thing for a reporter to check is: were guns banned from the place where the attack occurred?
At some time, people have to recognize that, with just two exceptions, at least since 1950, all the multiple victim public shootings in the United States have taken place where guns are banned. And you see these individuals, they surely act as if they’re trying their best to find areas where victims can’t defend themselves.
You look at the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2012. There you had seven movie theaters within a twenty-minute drive of the killer’s apartment; only one of them banned permit to conceal handguns with posted signs. The killer [James Holmes] didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that advertised itself as having the largest auditoriums in the state of Colorado. He went to the single place where permit to conceal handgun holders weren’t able to go and defend themselves.
And, this isn’t the first time he’s commented about gun-free zones. In January, Lott noted that this policy inflicts “cruelty” on the general public. He mentioned Aurora in the piece, but also added that we should look to “the advice from PoliceOne, whose 450,000 members make it the largest private organization of active and retired law-enforcement officers in the U.S.”
Lott said: “[PoliceOne] surveyed its members last March and asked, ‘What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public?’ Their No. 1 answer: ‘More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.’ (It was followed by ‘More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.’).”
Shortly after the Sandy Hook shootings, journalist John Fund expanded on the statistic Lott offered on mass shootings since the 1950s (via National Review):
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
Lott offers a final damning statistic: ‘With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.’
There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.