England: Defend a Loved One, Go to Jail

Submitted without comment (for now):

Teenager jailed for knife attack

A TEENAGER who slit the throat of his mother's violent lover was today starting a two-and-a-half year prison sentence.

One of Alex Court's jugular veins was cut when 18-year-old Benjamin Gunton sliced open his neck with a knife.

He had turned on Mr Court, 37, who had numerous convictions for violence, after seeing him attack his mother, Norwich Crown Court heard yesterday.

Gunton, of Chestnut Court, Norwich, was sent to a young offenders' institutions for 30 months after admitting causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Passing sentence, recorder Alistair Wilson, QC, said: “The cut to his throat could well have killed him.

“It opened one of his jugular veins, but fortunately he survived. It is obvious this was as serious an assault as one can possibly imagine.”

Prosecutor Jonathan Seely said at the time Gunton, his four siblings, his mother Sheryl Barber and Mr Court were living in three rooms at the Sandcastle Hotel in Great Yarmouth.

On February 2 Gunton, who had been drinking for most of the day, was told by other residents that Mr Court was attacking his mother in their room.

When Gunton went into the room, Mr Court was hitting his mother across the face and had her pinned her on the bed.

Mr Court then moved towards him and Gunton said he feared he was about to be attacked too, so he used a knife to inflict a 10cm cut to Mr Court's neck.

Mr Court lost a lot of blood at the scene and was taken to the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston.

He underwent an operation on his severed external jugular vein and his wounds were stitched and stapled. He was in hospital for three days.

Luke Brown, for Gunton, said he has a difficult family background and had witnessed his mother being abused by previous partners.

He added Mr Court had numerous previous convictions for violence and was acting aggressively when he was attacked.

The court was told Gunton's previous offending involved dishonesty in order to feed a £60 a week heroin habit he had when he was young, but he had since weaned himself off drugs.

OK, ONE comment: This is JUSTICE?

--

UPDATE:  As of August 6, 2013, due to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post (read-only) is available here.

Doesn't Make Much Sense, Does It?

Mike Ramirez (apparently the only good thing about the LA Times) comments on David Kay's recent WMD testimony:

Yeah, that about sums it up.

44 Days Until National Ammo Day

"Enlightened Internationalism" my A**!

Once again, Day by Day nails it:

And you can bet he hasn't read much American History. Too European white-male centric, probably.

You Know, I Think He's Right

James Lileks is ON in todays Bleat. But for me, the best part was this in the foot comments:

This alsso<(sic) means I will have nothing to say about current events this week - like this Limbaugh thing which is breaking; my gut says guilty. I am also sure that upon hearing the news, Al Franken spronged sufficient wood to knock the table over. In terms of his credibility with his followers, I think Rush just had his Aimee Semple McPherson moment. The faithful will be divided. Short term? His 4Q ratings book is going to rock.

And I hope Franken hurt himself knocking that table over.

More Propaganda

Today's editorial (originally printed Saturday, 10/4) comes from the Washington Post, and is entitled

To Quell the Killings

Bear in mind while you read this that "Quell" is defined:

to thoroughly overwhelm and reduce to submission or passivity (quell a riot)

That's not what they're talking about here.

But what a nifty title, eh?

MARYLANDERS HAVE long recognized how outlandish it is to allow the marketing of military assault-style weapons that have no place in any civilized state.

Unless they're in the hands of government employees, of course.

A decade ago Maryland banned the sale or transfer of a number of assault-style pistols; but even with a federal ban on the manufacture of 19 different models of assault weapons, creative copies of these high-powered firearms keep flooding the street markets that cater to violent criminals.

Really? Then the Violence Policy Center's report indicating that Bushmaster sold 150,589 semi-automatic rifles in the period between 1994 and 2000 means that every single one of them went to "violent criminals?" That's odd. The lower receiver of my AR (the part that's legally a "gun") is a Bushmaster, and last I checked, I don't have so much as a speeding ticket on my record. But all those guns were "flooding the street" eh? What about the 18,211 made by DPMS? Or the 32,504 made by Armalite? And those are just the domestically manufactured versions of the AR-15 type rifle. That doesn't include the imported AK variants.

Right, the only people who want to buy "assault rifles" are violent criminals. Sure.

The federal ban is set to expire in 11 months unless Congress acts, and some Maryland leaders -- including two top Democrats who may run against each other for their party's nomination for governor -- are united in support of a state bill to outlaw the sale or transfer of 45 models of assault-style rifles and shotguns. Their shared concern: If Congress caves in to the all-guns-are-great lobbyists and lets the limited federal protections die, Maryland ought to have an even better ban on its books. One of the weapons that would be banned, a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, was used in the sniper attacks in this region a year ago.

An "even better ban" that won't do what it's purported to do - keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of the violent criminals. Let's look (again) at Muhammed and Malvo.

Point 1: The rifle they used was a post-ban AR - one of the hundreds of thousands already in circulation (and this is what the gun grabbers banners are protesting). Yet these guns (and the tens of thousands of pre-ban rifles) will still be out there - unless, of course, the next step is confiscation.

Point 2: Muhammed and Malvo have already stated that they stole the rifle from a gun shop in Washington state, so a ban in Maryland wouldn't have any effect on the "availability" of the gun, would it?

Point 3: Muhammed and Malvo fired one shot at each of their victims, so the type of firearm involved was immaterial. Had they used a deer rifle chambered in a cartridge such as the 7mm Remington Magnum, then it is likely there wouldn't have been a single survivor, and they could have made their shots from a considerably greater distance. I guess those "long range sniper rifles" are next on the list, right?

But they keep milking the fact that an "assault rifle" was the weapon used.

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley have good political as well as safety reasons for backing a more inclusive ban.

No, they just have a political reason. Safety doesn't enter into the issue.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. voted as a member of Congress to overturn the federal ban on assault weapons; he prefers to echo the National Rifle Association position that stiffer sentences for gun crimes are a more effective approach. That may scare some criminals, even if it does nothing to lower the number of suicides or accidental deaths of children. But what is so essential about these weapons?

And what does "suicides and accidental deaths of children" have to do with an assault weapon ban? Or are we just supposed to ignore this non sequitur?

The 1994 federal ban should be extended, not ended.

Although it was illustrated at the beginning of the editorial that it was, essentially, useless.

The 19 weapons covered are listed by name, and the provisions include a ban on "copies" or "duplicates." But state Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery) and Del. Neil F. Quinter (D-Howard) fear that the federal ban may not be renewed, never mind improved. Federal uniform protection would be best, but in the meantime states are and should be enacting measures of their own. As of August 2002, seven states had some form of assault weapon ban: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Yes, and it's worked so well in those states, hasn't it? Kept them out of the hands of the law-abiding, gotten some people who were otherwise law abiding to break a new law, and done nothing to make anybody safer. And now, at least, California's ban is being challenged at the Supreme Court level. (We'll see if the Court deigns to actually hear the case.)

It isn't as if sportsmen would be denied their firearms. The federal law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns currently being manufactured. Isn't that ample?

First: The Second Amendment isn't about "sport."

Second: If you can ban one type of weapon on appearance or function, you can ban more, or all. It's called "the slippery slope" for a reason. The law protects 670 weapons now - that could change tomorrow.

Third: Sportsmen actually do use these weapons. The AR-15 is the rifle of choice for National Match competition, and makes a damned fine varmit rifle in some configurations. But who cares about that? They're eeeevil black rifles!

The weapons prohibited are those with multiple assault-weapon features such as a protruding pistol grip or grenade launcher or designs for spray-firing from the hip as fast as a shooter can keep pulling the trigger.

What? No mention of the bayonet lugs? The original ban made those illegal. Or the folding or collapsable stocks - what about those? I thought those defined an "assault weapon." Now it's the pistol grip and grenade launchers? We have a problem with criminals launching grenades now?

Little wonder, then, that law enforcement officials -- those who work to protect people from sniper fire or armed criminals -- support proposals to do away with assault-style weapons.

Except, of course, for the ones THEY have. You know, the ones that are often fully automatic and equipped with collapsable stocks.

How effective can homeland security measures be in a country awash with some of the most efficient firearms sought by international as well as domestic terrorists?

Right. Terrorists who can rent Ryder trucks and fill them with ANFO. Terrorists who can smuggle the full-auto versions of the AK into the country. Terrorists who will have no problem getting any weapon they want because they don't care about the law.

Can they get any more wound up without becoming hysterical?

Once again, I'm reminded of the VPC's comment about the "assault weapon" issue, because (remember the title of the op-ed? To Quell the Killings?) "assault weapons" aren't the problem the VPC sees. The VPC believes that handguns should be banned (and confiscated) because they are used in the overwhelming majority of killings in this country. But the effort to accomplish this has fallen flat. So the Violence Policy Center has latched onto the "assault weapon" frenzy for purely pragmatic reasons:

It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. (Most emphasis mine, but the emphasis on "a new topic" was theirs)


Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer. (The "divide and conquer" strategy.)


Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns, many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

For the VPC, the ends (gun bans) justify the means (fearmongering, distortion, and outright lying.) We "mistakenly believe" the Second Amendment means what it says. We are supposed to believe that "plastic firearms" that can get through a metal detector actually exist. And - taking advantage of the poor ignorant public they so urgently want to protect from itself - they want to take advantage of the mistaken assumption that "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun." (See The Lying News Media piece for an illustration of this tactic. Don't even bother to try to convince me that it was "an honest misunderstanding.")

Seems the Washington Post and a lot of politicians and other newspapers see it that way too.

Here's an Interesting Quote from a Law Enforcement Officer

From the Rockford Register Star, (Rockford, Illinois)

Cache of weapons found at residence

ROCKTON — A man who shot at the owner of a pizzeria because his pizza was delivered late Sunday was housing a small arsenal.

Police seized 45 handguns, 21 rifles, several hundred rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, two black ski masks and suspected narcotics from Robert Moye’s home Wednesday night.

Yeah, even I would call that a small "arsenal." But that's not the money quote. Read on.

The Winnebago County state’s attorney office issued a warrant Thursday for Moye’s arrest, and the Rockton Police Department displayed the impressive haul of mostly military-style assault weapons.

“In 22 years of law enforcement, this is the largest amount of weapons I’ve been involved with,” Rockton Police Chief Steve Dickson said.

Representatives from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Drug Enforcement Administration and an Illinois State Police crime lab technician helped catalog the weapons.

“Very few of these weapons have hunting applications,” said Rockton police officer Ron Dippel, eyeing an Air-15, similar to the military’s M-16 assault rifle. “Home defense. That’s the only reason for having weapons like that.”

Holy s&!t Batman! A COP said that?!?

“The bulletproof vest is particularly disturbing,” Dickson said. “They’re supposed to be hard to get.”

Moye, 45, of 901 Armstrong Ave., owner of Goldie’s Tattoo & Body Piercing parlors in Rockford and Lake Geneva, Wis., was first arrested on a charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm late Sunday for allegedly shooting at Sam’s Pizza owner Tony Pipitone and his cook, Santiago Rivera.

Moye bonded out of jail early Monday. He turned himself in again Thursday night and faces a charge of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.

His new bond was set at $200,000.

Now, this is ILLINOIS, where in order to purchase a gun or ammo you have to have a FIREARM OWNER ID CARD, and this guy is apparently a FELON who has acquired 45 handguns and 21 rifles.

Boy, that Illinois gun control really works, doesn't it?

Just about as well as the Chicago handgun ban.

But I can't get over that even cops are now saying (and newspapers reporting!) that military-style semi-auto's are "Home defense" rifles!

Hillary for President?

Josh at Bushblog (found via Boots and Sabers) has apparently made a scoop. By following the instructions, I went to the Federal Election Commission web page and found this:

Looks like Hill has been doing some planning for her "last minute change of mind," where she will be "drafted by the people."

What, I'm supposed to be shocked?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh discovers that the Hillary for Pres movement is the work of one Eric Leondard of "Draft Hillary for President 2004."

UPDATE #2: Blogger Mr. Mike's Rumpus Room O' Science (I don't make these names up!) took the bit in his teeth so to speak and did some research on his own on this interesting topic. Go read.

As a Follow-Up to the Post Propaganda...

...comes this story about a 4-year old who shot and killed his 5 year-old sister and wounded his 7 year-old brother.

The piece is entitled

Gun control laws needed at home

Whether or not you believe in gun control by the government, surely you and everyone else believe in gun control by parents.

Last Saturday in Prince George's County, Md., two young parents left unattended their four children, ages 4 to 10, and a handgun, a loaded .45 caliber semiautomatic. A boy, age 4, shot and killed his 5-year-old sister and critically wounded his 7-year-old brother, leaving his 10-year-old sister yelling for help.

In Maryland, guns manufactured after Jan. 1 must have built-in trigger locks. This one didn't. It was loaded and ready for a 4-year-old to grab and pull the trigger. Simple as pie.

And there are over 65 million handguns in circulation without built-in trigger locks. And, I'm sure, of the tens of thousands of guns out there with built-in trigger locks, the vast majority are not locked.

Anyone with half a brain could see that Maryland's trigger lock law wasn't about safety, it was about reducing access - because it severely limits the number of handguns that can be legally sold in Maryland. Remember, the gun ban control mantra is "it's the number of guns that's the problem."

Even if a parent had been in the house, it is possible that the 4-year-old might have obtained the gun and fired a few rounds before anyone could intervene.

First, "fired a few rounds????" The kid is FOUR! The author of this peice has obviously never fired a .45. I would imagine that ONE round was fired, killing the sister and wounding the brother. I doubt SERIOUSLY the 4 year-old managed to hang onto the pistol after the first round, I would be amazed if it didn't jam because he could not hold it properly, and I'm POSITIVE that after firing the first round he would have been scared out of his mind. However, if a parent had been carrying the gun, rather than leaving it lying around, the child would not have had access to it in the first place. But Maryland is a "may-issue" state, which means that unless you're politically connected or a celebrity you might as well not bother to apply, because they're not going to give you a permit. Maryland is the state where the Attorney General is a lobbyist for a handgun ban.

However, here you have two parents (Two! Imagine that!) who left the kids unattended. I don't know about you, but leaving a four year-old and a five year-old in the care of a ten year-old doesn't strike me as all that bright. Leaving a .45 where a four year-old can get to it doesn't either. Then again, there was the incident last year in Tennessee where a police officer was shot and killed by his 3 year-old son, so it illustrates that bad judgement can happen even with the responsible and well trained.

Many people feel safer with a loaded gun under a pillow or someplace handy. And some people don't want safety locks slowing their response times.

IF you have a gun for self-protection, then having it unloaded and/or locked renders it useless. But if you have children you must weigh the odds of needing a firearm for self-protection against the odds of one of the kids getting to a loaded weapon. This means exercising reason and personal responsibility. Something that we seem to be systematically removing from the general public.

But when kids are loose in a house with loaded guns handy, something is far more likely to go horribly wrong than right.

A lot of parents will not let their children visit homes where guns are kept, especially if the guns are not locked away. Neighbors may be offended when asked, "Do you have any guns in the house?'' Or, "Do you have any guns that children might reach?'' But when a 4-year-old can shoot and kill someone, those are questions worth asking.

You can read the Bill of Rights a thousand different ways without finding any prohibition against parents practicing gun control. Having seen guns in countless movies and TV shows, kids have a general idea how to use them. It is parents' responsibility to ensure that they never get the chance.

OK, I don't disagree with the last three paragraphs, but what "gun control laws" are going to prevent this? This was a horrible tragedy. The parents are responsible for the death of one child, the physical injuries of another, and the mental injuries to the whole family. What law can punish them more than this, and not inflict further injuries on the surviving children?

Yes, it's a tragedy, but it's a very rare tragedy in a country with nearly 300 million inhabitants.

Another Friday Five

1. What vehicle do you drive?

A 1999 Ford Ranger supercab step-side 4x4

2. How long have you had it?

Since March of 1999 (I ordered it just the way I wanted it.)

3. What is the coolest feature on your vehicle?

The 4WD, of course. And I use it, too, but the half-doors allowing access to the area behind the seats are a close second.

4. What is the most annoying thing about your vehicle?

Lack of power. It has the 4.0L V-6, but I traded in an '88 5.0L Mustang on it, and I miss the POWER!!

5. If money were no object, what vehicle would you be driving right now?

Probably this:



The Porsche (that's pronounced "por-sha", not "porsh") 911 Carrera 4S. It's been described as "an appliance for going fast." Three-hundred twenty horsepower, all-wheel drive, 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and reliable as an anvil. Stickers at $81,800. And it gets about the same mileage as my pickup.

I've always loved the 911.

Propaganda

noun: Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

Yes, I'm aware that it's done on both sides of this issue, but some of it is so blatant and amateurish it really shocks me that they do it. Take for example this October 2002 press release from Commonsense about Kids and Guns (it's a Word file):

Kennedy: Still Too Many Preventable Gun Accidents and Suicides

New Data Shows 58% Increase in Accidental Shootings of Small Children

Washington, DC -- Gun accidents and suicides took the lives of 1,200 children and teens**, plus an additional 18,358 kids 0-19 years-old were injured by a firearm and 1,776 were killed in homicides, according to new mortality and injury data released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the year 2000.

These findings were reported by Victoria Reggie Kennedy, president of the nonpartisan group Common Sense about Kids and Guns, on the three-year anniversary of the group’s founding.

“The reality is that many of these accidents, suicides, and injuries were preventable, if only the firearm in question had been properly stored: unloaded and locked,” stated Kennedy, quoting two of the six safety tips of her non-profit group.

“Common Sense about Kids and Guns is encouraged that overall rates of gun deaths have declined for the sixth straight year,” said Kennedy. “We applaud the responsible adults who followed our Common Sense Safety Tips and assured that no child or teen encountered a loaded or improperly stored firearm in their home.”

“But there is still more that needs to be done: among 0-4 year olds, accidental shootings actually increased a startling 58%!" declared Kennedy. “This is simply tragic. We must take personal responsibility to make certain guns are inaccessible to these very young children.”

“Without any exaggeration, the way a gun is stored can be a matter of life and death for our children,” Kennedy said. “Studies show that approximately 75% of all firearm-related accidents and suicides involving children and teens, and many homicides, are committed with a firearm found at home, or the home of a relative or friend.”

At the heart of the Common Sense about Kids and Guns message is parental responsibility. “A responsible adult cannot rely on a child or teenager not to touch a gun, merely because they have been told not to do so,” continued Kennedy. “It is impossible to predict what children, teenagers, and their friends will do, and the risks of mishandling a gun are too great to place the burden of responsibility on anyone other the adult bringing the gun into the home.”

Common Sense about Kids and Guns has developed six simple safety tips that have been endorsed by organizations from the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to the National Shooting Sport Foundation to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Whether or not someone decides to keep a gun
at home, Common Sense urges all adults to follow these steps to protect kids from gun deaths and injuries:

All gun owners must:
1) unload and lock up their guns;
2) lock and store ammunition separately; and
3) keep keys and combinations where kids are unable to find them.
All parents must:
4) ask if guns are safely stored at places their kids visit or play;
5) talk with their kids about guns; and
6) teach young children not to touch guns and to tell an adult if they find one.

“There are still many complex issues that lead to gun violence in our society – issues that we must address in a serious way,” concluded Kennedy. “But right now, if adults act responsibly and follow these six simple steps, we can continue to reduce the number of tragedies involving kids and guns. And remember, the child you save may be your own.”

Now, I don't have a lot of problems with this piece.* The facts are actually factual, and the suggestions recommendations demands listed at the bottom aren't really out of line (except I'll decide whether to keep a firearm loaded in my house. It's my responsibilty to make sure that the kids in my house don't have access to one.) But let's look at the part I highlighted, the 58% increase!

Damn if that's not a scary number!

It's propaganda - see definition above.

It is, indeed, factual. If you look at the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS tools it will tell you that in 2000 there were nineteen (19) children between the ages of 0 and 4 who died by unintentional gunshot, and that was indeed a 58% increase over 1999's twelve (12).

But I somehow doubt that Commonsense reported on the 37% decrease between 1998 and 1999, when the number went from NINETEEN to twelve. Or the 50% decrease between 1994 and 1996 when the number went from thirty-four (34!) to seventeen (17).

The fact is that over the period between 1995 and 2000 the average has hovered about 20 per year.

Yes, that's too many. Yes it's tragic. Yes, it's almost entirely due to irresponsible parents who left guns where someone (not always a toddler) could get to them.

But how about some perspective?

What about the 46 children from 0 to 4 years old who died by accidental poisoning in 2000?

Or the 44 who died in falls?

Or the 568 who drowned?

Where are the people urging legislation to stop these deaths due to irresponsible parents?

NOTE: The organization Commonsense about Kids and Guns is not a lobbying body. It restricts itself to "advocat(ing) personal action, rather than government action, in ending gun deaths" as commenter Mays succinctly put it. At least I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

It was not my intention to suggest that Commonsense was another Violence Policy Center or Brady Campaign, but on reflection it certainly could appear that way (and understandably, given my obvious, stated bias), and I apologize if it was so interpreted. (But this does point out the difference between intentionally misleading someone and accidentally doing so.)

*I take issue with the idea that teen suicides would be affected, but that's another topic.

**See this piece for commentary on the combining of accident and suicide statistics to ensure scary numbers.

Publicola Has Another Excellent Post Up

Here.

Excerpt:

I feel there's a 3 part equation necessary for a people to remain free when confronted with a tyrannical or generally oppressive government. A people need the Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist. A properly educated should have the Knowledge. This should also go a ways towards imparting the Will. & if these two things are in place then they will guard the Means jealously.

What is happening here is an effort to eliminate the education necessary to support the desired result of the equation: a free people. By downplaying & eliminating organized shooting sports it sends a message that it is no longer necessary to be concerned with those things. It cuts off a valuable supply line of information & experience.

What we need to do is to encourage as many as possible to try some of these shooting sports, such as High Power Rifle. By getting people involved we do two things: create a self interest in the preservation of our Right to Arms & form a solid base of trained individuals should we ever have to defend our Right to Arms or any other Right from foreign or domestic enemies.

Go read it all, and the links.

In Other News, What a Great Day!

Kim du Toit reports that Anheuser-Busch has withdrawn support for Missouri Gov. Bob Holden over his (overridden) veto of concealed-carry legislation, and Instapundit reports that the Centers for Disease control has released a report finding "no conclusive evidence that gun control laws help to prevent violent crime, suicides and accidental injuries in the United States."

My favorite quotation from the article:

There are an estimated 200 million privately held rifles, handguns and other firearms in the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms in its constitution.

Halleluja! (I wonder why Reuters didn't use the UN's significantly higher estimate of arms, but the admission that the Constitution guarantees a right to arms is a shocking admission from them.)

Least favorite quotation:

The CDC, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is prohibited from using funds to promote gun control. HHS, however, is determined to reduce the rate of firearms-related deaths by about two-thirds by 2010.

Two-thirds of what? Two thirds of what it is now? What it was in 1994? What? And how does HHS (Health and Human Services) propose to go about it?

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports on this story here. Money quote:

Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.

What else is new?

Here's the link to the study:

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

On the other side of the blotter, however, it appears that John "More Guns, Less Crime" Lott is in for a rough time. Several people are calling for a review panel to determine if academic fraud has occurred. Instapundit has a post concerning the Lott controversy, and there are several at the Volokh Conspiracy, plus Mark Kleiman comments. Throughout this whole thing, Tim Lambert has played the role Clayton Cramer did in the Bellesile's "Arming America" affair, and he's not happy with Clayton's response in this one.

I first commented on the Lott controversy here.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer comments on the Lott attackers, and makes some good points.

Unfortunately, defenders of Bellesiles made similar points (though considerably less factually accurate) about his attackers - until James Lindgren, a verifiably neutral party weighed in. And Lindgren is questioning Lott as well.

Just because Lott is being attacked by gun ban control proponents doesn't mean he hasn't played fast and loose with the facts.

We Don't Sit at Separate Lunch Counters (Yet) but Google Doesn't Want to Associate With Us

I belong to the Tucson Rifle Club. In fact, I'm a Board Member (Pistol Director) and a Match Director (IHMSA), so I get all the mailings from the Board members. It was brought to the attention of one of our members that Google, the internet search giant, wouldn't accept advertising from gun-related businesses or organizations. So he thought he'd see what they'd do with one from a public shooting range. Here's the unedited transcript of the e-mail exchange, TRC's in blue, Google's in red. The site webmaster attempted to enroll the TRC in the Google AdSense service. The exchange begins with Google's rejection notice:

At 09:20 AM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense Support wrote:
Hello Tucson Rifle Club,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your
application, our program specialists have found that the website
currently associated with your account does not comply with our
policies. Therefore, we're unable to accept you into Google AdSense at
this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If
you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this
email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.

Issues:

- Unacceptable site content

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

Further detail:

Unacceptable site content: Your website contains content that we do
not allow at this time. Please review our policies
(https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) for a complete list of site
content not allowed on web pages.

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

For a complete list of AdSense criteria, please visit:
https://www.google.com/adsense/policies
https://www.google.com/adsense/terms

If you would like to submit another website for consideration, simply
reply to this email and provide us with the URL. If this new website
complies with our program policies, we will help you start delivering
AdWords ads in minutes.

Please contact us at adsense-support@google.com if you have any
questions.

Regards,

The Google Team

To which our webmaster replied:

From: John Luiten
Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:09:38 -0700

I have reviewed your policies page once again and find nothing stated
therein that pertains to our website, "www.tucsonrifleclub.org". Our
organization is a State sanctioned body (Arizona Department of Game & Fish)
that provides shooting range facilities to thousands of residents in the
Southern Arizona region. We have been doing so since 1895.

We also provide significant support to the local law enforcement community as well.

Would you please be specific as to which of the following of your posted
site content rules you consider our site in violation of:

"Site may not include:

Excessive profanity
Hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual,
group, or organization
Hacking/cracking content
Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
Pornography, adult, or mature content
Gambling or casino-related content
Excessive advertising
Pop-ups that interfere with site navigation or are for downloads"


Regards,

--John Luiten, Webmaster
Tucson Rifle Club

And Google promptly responded:

At 05:59 PM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense wrote:
Hello John,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. Our program specialists
review all websites for a variety of criteria. These include, but are not
limited to, site content, clear navigation, and the site's potential value
to the AdSense program and the user experience.

During our review of your site, we have found content that strictly deals
with firearms and ammunition and many of the ads that would appear on your
site would not be relevant to your site's content. As the ads would not
provide a valuable experience for your site's users or our advertisers, we
feel that your site isn't a good fit for the AdSense program at this time.


Please feel free to reply to this email with any further questions. If you
manage or own another site on which you'd like to display AdWords ads, you
may reply to this email and include the URL in the message. We will then
reconsider your application. If the new site complies with our program
policies and is a fit for the AdSense program, we'll approve your
application and allow you to run ads on that specific site.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

(My emphasis) Dr. Luiten, not being one to take idiocy laying down, responded:

09/30/2003 11:05AM
Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status

Thank you for your prompt response. I am beginning to understand your
decision making process a bit better.

As I view the process, you would seem to have two sets of rejection
criteria: one published and one internal. In this case, your internal
rejection criteria is for sites dealing in "firearms and ammunition", or
perhaps better stated, "firearms" since there is no reference to
"ammunition" that I can find on our site pages.

You further state that, "many of the ads that would appear on your site
would not be relevant to your site's content." What has this to with
advertising to potential customers? We are not looking to your service to
augment the firearm related content of our site, but as a service to our
viewers.

There are over 80 million firearm owners in the United States of America.
Firearm owners live in every state and community in this nation. We drive
cars, shop in grocery stores, eat at restaurants. You have no advertisers
currently subscribed in these areas?

Like it or not, we are your neighbors.

But perhaps you are looking for an advertising edge. A specificity in your
subscriber base to promote to potential advertisers? Then you are allowing
you biases to deprive yourself of an excellent marketing
opportunity. Tucson Rifle Club members compose a disproportionate share of

Southern Arizona's campers, hikers, hunters, and outdoorsmen of all
types. Surely large companies specializing in sporting goods and clothing
(e.g., Cabela's, LL Bean, Eddie Bauer) would look favorably upon reaching
such an audience?

What first led me to your AdSense service was an advertising strip of yours
on a car hobbyist website. Although several of the ad's you listed there
referred to the specific model car this site promotes, many did
not. Indeed, they advertised "brake Jobs", "mufflers", "oil filters" and
the like. We may be located in the West, but I can assure you, we stopped
riding horses to the range some time ago. Are ad's for car accessories,
especially those pertaining to OHV's, also not relevant to our site
viewers?

I ask you to reconsider your prohibition against "firearm" related websites
(and I assume advertisers) in light of what it is, simple prejudice. Your
policy is short-sighted, exclusionary, and when it becomes known to the
general public will prove ultimately detrimental to your business goals.

Respectfully,

--John Luiten, Webmaster
Tucson Rifle Club

As of yet there has been no further response from Google, but if there is, rest assured I'll keep you informed.

These are GOOD!

Robert Ariail, editorial cartoonist for the The State (S.C.) has a few recent cartoons that are excellent:

He has a new book out, too: ARIAIL!!, and an earlier collection, Ariail Attack!

The Blogging Kevins Will Appreciate This

They named a gun after us.

Perhaps embarrassingly, a pocket pistol.

I give you - The Kevin:

It's a .380 blow-back manufactured in the Czech Republic (and probably not importable because of the BATFE's "Saturday Night Special" rules,) 6-round magazine capacity, DAO.

And it looks like it'd hurt to shoot.

(Would it have been too much to ask for something chambered in .45ACP?)

Get this: What else does the manufacturer make? 12.7mm (about .50 caliber) SNIPER RIFLES. Named "Falcon."

Yeah, right. Mouse gun = "Kevin"

.50 caliber long range boomer = "Falcon"

There's no justice.

More Wonderful News from Australia

For a people descended largely from convicts, you'd think they'd have more testicular fortitude, but apparently not.

Nor do they seem to have much in the way of logical faculties, if this story is anything to go by. (Nod to Keepandbeararms.com again.)

Gun buyback underway

"Buyback." Right. As though the guns were bought from the government, and now they're simply "buying them back."

A NATIONAL gun buyback scheme and firearms amnesty aimed at curbing the illegal guns trade began in NSW today, Police Minister John Watkins said.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but England BANNED ALL handguns and it hasn't "curb(ed) the illegal guns trade" there, has it? In fact, the "illegal guns trade" in England is a BOOMING BUSINESS, isn't it?

Isn't one definition of insanity "Repeating the same behavior while expecting a different outcome?"

The buyback is part of a national plan to outlaw a range of handguns, with the initiative already underway in the majority of states amd territories.

The firearms amnesty applies to unlicensed owners and/or unregistered guns of any type but will not result in payment to the gun owner.

So, let's see if I understand this: If you own a licensed gun (and are thus a law-abiding gun owner) you'll get reimbursed for your property. But if you're an illegal gun owner, and possess unregistered firearms, well, if you turn them in you'll get the heartwarming feeling that you've done your civic duty, but no money?

And this will disarm who exactly?

I though so.

If it's that blindingly obvious to me, why are they going along?

The buyback and amnesty were part of a scheme put forward by Prime Minister John Howard and accepted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) last year.

Finally! The word "scheme" used appropriately!

Mr Watkins said NSW would use three vans – similar to RBT vans – to visit gun clubs and dealers across the state to collect newly prohibited guns under the National Buyback program.

Licensed owners who turn their handguns and accessories over to police will receive a cheque on the spot – based on a national price list," he said in a statement.

He said the buyback and the amnesty would both run until March 31, 2004.

Mr Watkins said two previous amnesties and a buyback, held since 1995, had resulted in the surrender of 207,215 firearms in NSW.

The programs would bolster the NSW Government's plan, announced last week, to address the illegal guns trade.

"Obviously, criminals are not going to take any notice of the buyback or amnesty," Mr Watkins said.

"But these programs should reduce the total number of firearms in the community.

There it is: It isn't the criminals that are the problem, it's the number of guns. And the only way to address the number of guns? TAKE THEM FROM THE LAW ABIDING. Thank you Mr. Watkins for stating what gun banners control advocates here will not say (with the exception of the Violence Policy Center and a few outspoken individuals.) The ONLY "gun control" that CAN "work" is gun CONFISCATION - but it DOESN'T work because you CANNOT DISARM THE CRIMINALS. The most you can do is disarm the victims. And that works so well everywhere it's tried, doesn't it?

And the other thing this illustrates? Registration is only good for confiscation. You can only be sure you get the guns that are REGISTERED. The ones outside the registry? Who knows?

"And our illegal guns policing package ... will hit back at the dangerous criminals who dare to carry firearms on our streets," he said.

Hey, I'm all for that! Find 'em, jail 'em.

Oh, wait. "Dangerous criminals" like the guy in the story below? Nevermind.

South Australia's handguns buyback also begins today.

Again: What it will do is disarm the law-abiding. It will do NOTHING to disarm THE CRIMINALS. And it will turn a LOT of formerly law-abiding citizens INTO criminals.

For government, that's a win-win situation, isn't it?

This is What the Gun Control Groups Consider "Reasonable Regulation"

"England can do it, Australia can do it, We Can TOO!" is what they were chanting at the (somewhat less than a) Million Moms March a couple of years ago. Courtesy of Keepandbeararms.com comes this heartwarming story of what can happen to you in a totally gun-phobic society when you take possession of a gun that belongs to a relative - just to FIX it!

Family allowed to keep heirloom gun

Allowed! How nice that the State allowed this family to keep their own property! But wait! It gets better!

A Mooroopna man was convicted and fined with possession of an unregistered firearm in Shepparton Magistrates' Court yesterday after taking possession of the family heirloom to remove a jammed bullet.

Jay Hunter, 23 a slaughterman of PicolaKatunga Rd, Picola, was given the Remington .22 pump-action rifle by his grandmother on June 6.

The court heard how the day after the gun was given to Mr Hunter to remove a jammed bullet, police attended his home to investigate reports of a domestic dispute between he and his partner that day.

Police prosecutor Senior Constable Les Oroszvary said Mr Hunter offered police the use of his phone to ring the victim's parents and confirm the victim's welfare.

Objection! Mr. Hunter has not been convicted of anything (except in the media), so his "partner" was not a "victim." His "partner" was the other person in reported domestic dispute. This could have been anything from a shouting match to a knock-down-drag-out fight, but you'll note that Mr. Hunter was not charged with domestic abuse, if you read further. Hell, HE could have been the "victim."

But Mr. Hunter had an unregistered firearm! He's obviously an eeeeevil wife- partner-beater.

"While there the police saw the Remington .22 pump-action rifle and subsequently arrested the defendant," Sen Const Oroszvary said.

He should have never let them in the house. But do police in Australia require a search warrant?

Apparently they don't in the U.S. anymore.

Magistrate Steve Raleigh ordered the gun be destroyed; however, Mr Hunter's grandmother, who was in court during the hearing, pleaded that the heirloom be preserved.

The court heard how the firearm belonged to the defendant's deceased grandfather and had sentimental and monetary value.

Magistrate Raleigh allowed for the gun to be kept by the family under conditions that it be registered and in the possession of a licensed gunman.

Mr Hunter was convicted and fined $500 on the firearms charges.

And another dangerous, violent felon was prevented from committing a heinous crime, right?

Who cares, the State is $500 richer, another dangerous firearm is registered, and another citizen has a criminal record! A trifecta!

I swear upon everything I hold dear I will NEVER obey a law requiring me to register my firearms or get a license to own them.

Oh Yeah, Licensing and Registration is a GREAT Idea!

Just look at how well it's working in Canada!

This report (link might be temporary) explains that the gun-owner database that was supposed to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" is, like the rest of the system, a disaster:

Ottawa report blasts gun registry

Unreliable data threaten key screening goal of program

OTTAWA - An internal Justice Department report on the firearms program cites major weaknesses in the ability of the gun registry to provide crucial information to firearms officers and police.

The report says one of the chief goals of the program -- continual screening to make sure gun owners remain eligible for licences -- is threatened by unreliable information contained in a massive database that is supposed to tip police and the Canada Firearms Centre to individuals who should not own firearms.

The report, dated last April, also says RCMP concern about privacy rights is delaying or preventing access by firearms officers to information they need to judge whether a person should be issued gun licences.

Privacy rights? What right to privacy do peons have?

As well, firearms officers told Justice officials who prepared the report they were concerned about delays receiving copies of court prohibition orders that could prevent individuals from acquiring firearms or force them to surrender them.

Furthermore, police officials expressed concern about the length of time it can take to obtain information from the registry on all the firearms that may be registered to a gun owner at a specific address. Each individual serial number must be searched on the registry.

The report, obtained by Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz through the Access to Information Act, also pinpointed major failures in the original design of the program which led to the explosion in costs Auditor General Sheila Fraser outlined in a scathing report last year.

Garry Breitkreuz has been a vocal and active opponent of C.68 since inception, and has fought implementation of the registry probably harder than any MP. He also predicted that it would run way over budget - and was right.

The report was prepared by the Justice Department's evaluation division, which conducted a review of the firearms program covering the period from 1995, when Parliament passed the Firearms Act, to September 2002, three months before Fraser released her report.

The Justice Department report contains further detail about aspects of the program which Fraser also questioned.

It says police agencies do not follow consistent procedures when entering information in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database, an RCMP computer information record which contains files on four million individuals for the purpose of gun licence screening. Local police forces contribute about 75 per cent of the information in the database.

Thus reinforcing the objection that implementation of licensing and registration draws on police resources thus further reducing their ability to do their primary job - protecting the citizens. And that time isn't free either.

The report notes the database is a major component of the firearms program's ability to ensure licence eligibility of gun owners is reviewed continuously -- one of the main arguments the government has used to argue the Firearms Act will do more for public safety than the previous licensing system.

Except it's run like pretty much every other government database - poorly. Nor is it secure (there's that privacy issue again.)

"There appear to be several issues that threaten the effectiveness of FIP," the report says, explaining some police agencies enter information that is irrelevant to gun ownership, files are duplicated whenever a FIP file is modified and information on individuals in the database is often vague. For example, the report said surnames are often entered only with the initial of the person's first name.

Police, however, say they have more time for front line work now that the firearms centre has taken over responsibility for screening would-be gun owners.

The report said key personnel interviewed for the evaluation, including Canada Firearms Centre officials, were "nearly unanimous" that the centre's structure was poorly designed at the outset, with separate policy and operations branches that reported to an assistant deputy minister who had duties in other areas within the Justice Department.

As well, the department initially had a "consensus approach" to management which attempted to accommodate too many divergent views and interests.

"The search for consensus had a cascading effect on the entire implementation of the Canadian Firearms Program," the report says. "At least in hindsight, the initial implementation timelines and the ambiguous net estimate of $85 million to implement the (Canadian Firearms Registration System) were quite unrealistic and damaged the credibility of the program," the report says.

So, you're saying it was just another government bureaucracy?

"The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." — Eugene McCarthy

Firearms centre spokesman David Austin noted that the report was delivered following changes to the program the government had initiated earlier in response to Fraser's report.

Jebus, where have I heard that before. "Oh, yes, we had those problems, but they're fixed now!"

Breitkreuz predicted it will cost the government millions to fix the weaknesses outlined in the Justice Department report.

The latest flaws in the registry followed last week's revelation that it has been a dismal failure at tracking stolen guns over the last five years, matching only 4,438 firearms with descriptions of more than 100,000 stolen weapons the firearms centre attempted to trace.

All the stolen guns which were located had been registered under the Firearms Act, according to RCMP records obtained by Breitkreuz. The owners apparently acquired them without knowledge they were stolen.

The records also revealed that serial numbers for 250,305 firearms logged in the registry matched the serial numbers of the 101,835 guns police reported stolen since 1998.

Why, why, WHY do gun control proponents think licensing and registration will work here?

Because of the duplication of serial numbers, a weakness of the gun-making industry years ago, all the stolen rifles and shotguns that were traced had to be found through manual comparisons of other features, such as the manufacturer's name, model and brand.

It is estimated that setting up the gun registry will carry a price tag approaching $1 billion.

I've got news for you: EXCEEDING $1 billion. Even in Canadian dollars, that's a lot of dough to flush down a rathole.

POWER is Up!

Bill Whittle has published his 13th essay, POWER.

Go read.