New Shooter, New Blogger.

There's a new guy out there. Texican. Goes by the handle "Pistolero." He says he's only been shooting for about a year, and he's only been blogging a couple of months, but he has excellent taste in firearms. Swing by and give him a visit.

How Do You Get Your Rights Back?

Well, one good way to start is by convincing a plurality of 1/2 the population that guns aren't icky, evil, and the spawn of Satan.

For self-defense, women take up firearms

As violence rises, so does female gun use, advocates say

MELISSA MANWARE AND MARK PRICE
mmanware@charlotteobserver.commprice@charlotteobserver.com

A single mom wanting to protect her children. A mall worker fearing a dark parking lot. A real estate agent meeting strangers in empty homes.

They are Charlotte-area women. And they own guns.

More women, gun advocates say, are buying, shooting and carrying firearms -- in briefcases, purses or even on their hips.

For some, it's sport. But with violent crime up from five years ago and Charlotte-Mecklenburg police actively searching for a serial rapist, many women say it's about self-protection.

Nationwide, violent crime is down, but that doesn't mean that in specific locations it isn't up.

"Things out there are tough, for men and for women," Christy Barnes, a 22-year-old chiropractic assistant, said while practicing at a shooting range earlier this month. "I'd like to know I can handle myself."

Local gun retailers and range owners say women are one of their fastest growing markets.

And the National Rifle Association says female participation in its programs is soaring. The NRA doesn't ask members their sex, but 22,000 women across the country have taken its instructional shooting classes in the last five years.

The federal government doesn't track gun sales by sex, and some gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, question whether a national trend really exists.

Of course they do. A million armed mothers is not on their agenda.

The number of women with a permit to carry a concealed gun in Mecklenburg County has risen about 15 percent to more than 750 in the last two years, an Observer check of records found. The percentage of Mecklenburg's concealed carry permits issued to women, however, has remained about the same.

At a gun show at Metrolina Expo on Saturday, customers said some sellers offered guns with fancy, even pink stocks, to attract women. There also was a table full of purses with a special pocket and holster hidden inside.

Operators would not let an Observer reporter in the show.

What?!? They didn't slip someone in "under cover"?!?

The growing female market, experts say, can be attributed to many things, including more women heading households, more fear of crime, and less stigma attached to gun ownership.

And I say halleluja for that!

Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Gun Shop, says women -- most with a husband twisting their arm -- used to make up about 2 percent of his business. Now women account for about 15 percent, and he carries guns made especially for them and the purses equipped with a holster.

Hyatt said he has seen a slow, steady increase of female customers over the last 20 years -- and then big jumps after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. He also saw an uptick in sales to women after police said a serial rapist attacked a Dilworth jogger last year.

This is now known as "Awakening." I covered a few cases of it back in September in the aftermath of Katrina. Men were the primary beneficiaries, but women were awakened as well. Of course not everyone got the whole message, but you take what victories you can.

More and more people are understanding what it means to be a member of what Glenn Reynolds calls "a pack, not a herd."

Dan Starks, who has taught firearms safety courses for 17 years said a firearm can give women the power to control almost any situation. And with crimes like carjackings and home invasions increasingly common, Starks says they need the protection.

That's something else - while overall violent crime is down, the kind of crime is changing, somewhat. Carjackings are much more common than they used to be, for example.

"When you have a firearm in your hand, and the knowledge, skill and chutzpah to use it, nine times out of 10 you won't have to use it," he said. "Criminals don't like armed citizens."

Lauren Hargett, 24, said she gets nervous walking to her car in an underground parking area near where she works at SouthPark mall. She intends to get a concealed carry permit and practiced her shooting the weekend after a convenience store clerk was gunned down in a robbery in that same part of town.

"Every night you hear about something happening," she said.

And, while violent crime is down to near 1960's levels, that doesn't mean those levels are particularly safe. Just lower than they've been in decades.

Hyatt said most of his female customers first buy a gun for protection. Some of them learn they like shooting, and then take it up as a sport. Since the NRA began offering women's only hunting trips in 2000, spokeswoman Ashley Varner said, participation has skyrocketed from 500 to 6,000. Locally, gun dealers say, few women hunt and most who do go with a spouse.

Saturday afternoon, 11-year-old Lindsay Sigmon, walked out the exit of the gun show resting a long gun on her shoulder. Her parents, Gary and Shanna Sigmon, said they began teaching Lindsay to shoot at age 4 because they have guns in their home and believe everyone who lives there needs to know how to operate them safely.

Lindsay and Shanna, an English teacher, shoot at a cone for practice at home. "We go hunting (for deer), but never get anything," Lindsay said. "I don't know if that counts."

At Firepower, an indoor pistol range and gun shop in Matthews, workers say about one in 10 who use the range are women, many of whom shoot for fun. Their regular customers include married couples and father-daughter pairs.

They wear safety glasses and ear protection, then take turns firing at paper targets in a small room with six shooting lanes 50 feet long. Bullet casing are scattered on the floor.

On Wednesday, a 72-year-old woman went in asking for information about the range. She owns two handguns, she said, and likes to shoot every couple of months so she hopes she'd feel comfortable if she needed to use a gun in an emergency. She didn't want her name printed in the newspaper, she said, because she didn't want people to know she's got the guns.

That's another thing: unless a woman has a pathological fear of firearms, the majority of them discover that shooting is fun, and it's empowering. Back in November of 2004 I wrote a couple of pieces about Slate columnist and NPR contributor Emily Yoffe, the "Human Guinea Pig," and her exposure to shooting. The first was about her Slate article, "Guinea Get Your Gun," subtitled "How I learned to love firearms." The second piece was a transcript of her NPR interview on the same subject. The interviewer sounded almost shocked by the fact that she enjoyed - and was good at - shooting, but her experience is the norm, not the exception.

Zack Ragbourn, with the Brady Campaign, said guns don't necessarily improve your safety. If you have a gun at home, according to the campaign, it's at least 20 times more likely to end up accidentally shooting someone than it is to protect you from an intruder.

Well, that's down from "43 times more likely to kill someone in the home than an intruder." Thank Dr. Arthur Kellerman for those bogus statistics. Note that the authors of this piece check to see if the ratio of female-to-male permit holders in their county has changed in the last two years, but accept (and present) the Brady Campaign mouthpieces's "fact" as gospel.

Anne Tucker, 50, said she's been shooting since she became an adult. She grew up watching Westerns. When she was a kid her brother shot her grandfather's guns, but she didn't get to do it. Now, she carries a gun on her belt. And six years ago, she gave up her job teaching job skills to disabled people to work at Firepower.

She's drawn a gun twice in self-defense but never actually pointed one at anyone. Mostly, she said, she enjoys shooting for sport.

"I like hitting a very small target from a very long distance," she said. "It's kind of like golf."

Depending on the sport, it very well can be.

Then there's this one, from the opposite coast:

Women put finger on the trigger

By DANIELLE SAMANIEGO
Contra Costa Times

Call it a post-Sept. 11 thing or a bonding thing.

Laura Nicoli calls it stress relief.

"You can go back to work the next day and not want to shoot anyone," the Rodeo resident said through an infectious laugh that bellowed from her small frame.

Nicoli is one of many women making their way to the gun ranges as rifle associations and gun clubs make efforts to cater to the rising demographic.

"We've really had a phenomenal growth pattern," said Mary Sue Faulkner, director of the National Rifle Association community service programs division. She referred specifically to the Women on Target program, which has grown from 500 participants in 1999 to 5,600 last year.

One thing is clear: this isn't your grandfather's gun scene. At places like the Martinez Gun Club, family night on Wednesdays offers dinner and shooting.

The Women on Target program is just one of several steps the NRA has made to handle women's interests. Its Web site offers a Women's Programs page for seminars in areas like self protection and female-specific hunting and shooting opportunities. Even the current NRA president is a woman. Sandra Froman has served since April 2005.

Magazines like "Women & Guns" and the NRA's own "Woman's Outlook," which boasts a circulation of 55,000, offer equipment and clothing tailored for women.

"Here, we can barely keep up with the demand for those volunteers that want to provide shooting opportunities for women," Faulkner said. "Shooting is fun and I think once women pull the trigger -- go skeet shooting, go to the pistol range -- I think they're hooked. It's for the fun, but also for self-protection, that's an issue too."

John Geisness, an NRA-certified training counselor who lives in Martinez, said he noticed a jump in women wanting to learn how to handle a firearm properly after the fallout of Hurricane Katrina.

"There were a fair amount (of women) after 9/11, but the media really showed what was going on with the hurricane and people became more concerned...we're seeing more people interested in hand guns for self protection," he said. "The majority of the people I see are females between the age of 35 and 55 that have never owned a gun before and they realize education is the key to understand the safety and operation of a firearm."

Geisness teaches day-long NRA instruction courses throughout Contra Costa County in basic pistol, rifle and shotgun courses. There is also a shorter course on home firearm safety available.

At least weekly, almost daily, Zendo Deb details another failure of a restraining order over at TFS Magnum. Via Deb, here's another piece about women and shooting sports, and for some local flavor, here's another one about Tucson native Debbie Ferns out actively recruiting female shooters down in Louisiana, Author touts shooting for women. Ferns is the author of Babes with Bullets: Women Having Fun With Guns.

I bet that title makes Sarah Brady cringe!

UPDATE: And here's another piece on women, guns, and fun; a profile of NRA-certified instructor Cathy Ash of Barlow, OH. Money quotes

For more and more American women like Ash, knowing how to handle and properly use a firearm offers empowerment, self-confidence, security, and fun.

"I love it all, just so long as it goes bang," Ash said of her guns.

--

"Actually, it's very empowering to know how to handle a firearm safely," Ash said. "Your confidence level soars and it's loads of fun."

--

"It's still overwhelmingly boys and always has been," Stone said of shooting. "For most women, husbands and fathers have always taken care of the gun cabinet. Now women and girls want to learn."

(Via Tam & Deb.)

How Many Times Do I have to REPEAT Myself?.

Via Joe Huffman comes this inane imbecilic piece from the inappropriately named "Gun Guys" web page, Our Country's Crazy Concealed Carry Laws. It's pretty much boilerplate anti-concealed carry diatribe, and we get the standard money-quote:

Here’s the two things you need to know about concealed weapons: first off, they're dangerous. More guns means more violence, no matter what.

Really?

Let me repeat myself. One. More. Time.

Here's the U.S. murder rate from 1900 through 2002:

The decline has continued through 2005.

Here's the non-fatal firearms crime stats from 1993 through 2004:

Here's the simple and aggravated assault rates from 1973 through 2004:

According to this Clinton-era Whitehouse press release:

Handguns Account for Nearly Half of All New Gun Sales – About 2 Million Per Year. Fifty years ago, handguns represented only one out of every 10 new gun sales. Now they account for more than four out of 10.

And - one more time - here's the map of the U.S. showing the progress of "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws:

Now, since 1986 we've added at least 20 MILLION handguns and probably 40 million shotguns and rifles (literally millions of them so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons") to the total in private hands. We've gone from eight "shall-issue," 17 "no-issue" and 24 "may-issue" states (and one unrestricted) to 37 "shall-issue," 9 "may-issue" and 2 "no-issue" states, with TWO unrestricted.

But you want me to believe that "More guns means more violence, no matter what."

You, too, are cordially invited to eat my shorts. "Straight shooter" my ass.

UPDATE: Mike Lief posts a link to this piece, and draws this comment:

I question the veracity of your source.

from "Sbarro."

He questions the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bill Clinton's White House? Who does he trust??

And why didn't he raise his objections here?

Machiavelli On Absolutism

From his 1517 treatise on practical politics, The Prince:

The way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live, that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation.

And 489 years later, this is still true.

(Hat tip to reader Frederic, who has this as his sigline to his email. Talk about topical.)

Why Our Tax Laws Will Never Be Simplified.

Instapundit links to a smackdown of Sen. Grassley's take on "incompetent tax preparers," where the honorable Senator says:

Any Joe can hang a shingle and prepare income tax returns. There are no requirements at all," Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said. "It’s incredible that we have legal requirements for a barber to cut your hair, but there are no requirements for someone to prepare your taxes. Americans have a right to expect that when they hire a tax preparer they’re going to get honest, straightforward advice.

Others have noted that advice from the IRS is no more reliable than advice from "any Joe." Still more have advocated gutting the tax code and going with a "Fair" tax or a flat tax or a consumption tax.

Never going to happen.

This is why:

It's the only power Congress really has. They're not going to give it up, short of being at gunpoint.

Evidence that the UK's Policing Problems are Due to Philosophical Leftism?

I think so. Check this March 22 Daily Mail story:

Police force has 'no time for small crime'

A police force has stopped investigating less serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic.

Theft, criminal damage, common assault, harassment and non-domestic burglary are among offences being "screened out" due to manpower shortages.

But officers are allowed to make an exception for any such incident judged to be motivated by race or gay hatred. It would then classify as "aggravated" and qualify for more serious treatment by police and the courts.

Thus making racial minorities and homosexuals a special, protected class.

Exceptions would also be allowed if a victim had been repeatedly targeted or was elderly or disabled.

"Allowed," but not required.

The policy, introduced in Hull, provoked a storm last night. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis called it 'terrifying'.

Police chiefs on Humberside insisted their officers no longer had time to solve minor crimes.

The screening policy was necessary because the Home Office had set tough targets for cutting a backlog of 3,500 unsolved serious offences in the city.

Lesser crimes would be recorded but not pursued, even where there was overwhelming evidence, such as CCTV footage.

The only chance of a prosecution is if an offender 'presents themselves' for easy arrest - for example a shoplifter being handed over to police by store detectives - or if a repeat offender is later arrested for another more serious crime.

They're completely fucking insane over there.

If You Want More of Something, Subsidize It

The UK's Home Office, the department of the British state responsible for keeping track of various government statistics, reports triumphantly that burglary is down in England & Wales by 20% from the previous year, and is now half of what it was in 1995! Just look!

Our target is to reduce domestic burglary between 1999 and 2005/06 by 25%, and we are pursuing various means to achieve this.

Working together

Working together is essential to combat burglary, and we have worked in partnership with companies target burglary prevention messages at specific groups such as people moving house, students, older people and holiday makers.

Tougher sentencing

This approach has gone hand-in-hand with other initiatives such as tougher sentencing. We have introduced a minimum sentence of at least three years for people convicted of burglary on three separate occasions.

Coded for keeps

We're also working to make it harder, riskier and less profitable for thieves to use or dispose of stolen goods. This includes several elements such as tackling handlers and other outlets for stolen goods and trying to get industry to produce (and the public to buy) more secure products.

You can help by marking your property with your postcode, and by not buying property you think might be stolen - it’s not just an offence (punishable by up to 14 years in prison) but it encourages thieves and funds drug habits.

Keeping burglary down

Burglary rates are dropping, and we want this to continue. You can help by making sure you do everything possible to secure your property, as you’re much less likely to be a victim of burglary if you have security measures in place in your home.

For example, the Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005 report found that while 83% of the general public had window locks, only 36% of burglary victims did. This strongly indicates that the more secure your property, the less likely it is you will be burgled.

Meaning, of course, that it's your own damned fault for not chaining everything you own down with titanium chain. But! Things have improved!

Not for freaking long, though.

David Hardy provides the link to this Daily Mail story:

'Let burglars off with caution', police told

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.

But that's not all!

Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.

And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.

The Home Office instruction applies to offenders who have admitted their guilt but who have no criminal record.

They are also likely to be able to show mitigating factors to lessen the seriousness of their crime.

And what is the reason behind all of this?

The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases - even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes - comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

Wow! Fifteen month "life sentences!"

Did it not occur to anyone that, just possibly, the reason crime rates were going down was because the criminals were in jail and couldn't commit crimes against the public in there?

I suppose not.

The latest move provoked condemnation yesterday from Tories and critics of the justice system.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Yet again the Government is covertly undermining the penal system and throwing away the trust of ordinary citizens that criminals will be punished and punished properly.

"In the last few weeks we have witnessed a serial failure of Labour to protect the citizen, with murders of innocent people by criminals variously on early release or probation, and now we're finding that ever more serious crimes are not being brought to court at all."

Criminologist Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: "They appear to have given up making the court system work and doing anything about delays and the deviousness of defence lawyers.

"This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilised, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not."

Of course not! Only intentions matter! Once you've built a philosophy, you can't let anything as banal as reality interfere! I'm not going to reproduce the rest of the article, but isn't this the mirror-image of NYC's "broken windows" policy? Well, it would seem that England & Wales will be a petri dish to test that theory in now. Anyone want to bet on which way Britain's crime rates are going to go? They have made the cop on the beat the judge, but told him, in effect, to not judge.

Here are some of the (as of this writing) 101 comments left in response to this April 3 (not April 1!) story:

If I park in the wrong place or go through a speed camera at five miles per hour more than I should do, then I must pay my dues to society.

Yet, if I go 'on the rob' or set fire to the occasional building, I will be let off with a caution. This is madness!

- Jakman, Bognor Regis

--

If the government keep giving guidelines like this to the police forces and burglary and crimes like these are no longer classed as a crime, then the government will soon reach it's lower target on crime figures and we could soon end up with a crime free country and then we can say that crime is on the decrease, who are we trying to kid.

- Larry, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port

I think Larry's on to something here...

How long before there are no such crimes as burglary, arson, vandalism and sex with under age girls? Then the incompetents in government and the Home Office will not need to worry about meeting their own imposed targets!
The anarchy of Blair's elected dictatorship worsens by the day.

- Brian Tomkinson, Bolton, UK

Seems Brian's on the same frequency.

Why don't we just disband the police altogether as they are largely ineffective anyway.
Unless a motorist is involved with the crime of parking without a ticket.

- A.J.Langley, Kent, UK

--

Are the government losing their minds? My friends frail parents aged 80 and 82 were robbed in their home while they watched TV in the lounge. Their bedroom was a total mess and several items were taken including a watch that had belonged to their son who was killed in an accident.

Not content with the pain and suffering they had caused, the burglars phoned them the next day and verbally threatened them.

Give burglars a caution - they should bring back birching!

- Sally, Manchester, UK

--

Having been burgled recently I now come to work in dread of what I may find when I get home. If they do not want to send these scum to jail then they should be taken to the market square and flogged.

- Phil Beardsley, Nottingham, England

--

Typical of this government. Talk about honour among thieves. It won't be long before it will be the victim who gets locked up for putting temptation in front of weak individuals. It is time they went before we have a revolution in the streets, Paris ain't that far away!

- Nigel, Somerset

Sorry, Nigel, but as much as it pains me to say it, those of you who still have the balls to revolt are too few and far between, I think.

It really doesn't matter whether the sentence is a scolding or twenty years imprisonment. Until the police start catching criminals neither 'punishment' will act as a deterrent.

- Chris Downing, Rothwell, England

--

Something akin to a licence to kill really - just shows the state of British Justice when it's more of an offence to drop litter than to burgle someone's house! No wonder this place has gone to the dogs!

- Ms. Fred Moulson, Desborough

Of course it's more of an offense to drop litter! You're a law-abiding citizen who will do as you're told. If you're a criminal, they know you won't show up in court, so what's the point? But you solid citizens, you'll take your medicine!

I'm disappointed they are not giving them a safari holiday as well.

- Martyn James Fraser, Liverpool

Don't give them any ideas, Martyn. They take more than enough of your money in taxes as it is.

We might as well leave our doors and windows open for the burglars to walk in and help themselves.

Far less stressful than getting up in the morning to find that person, or persons unknown, have invaded your privacy whilst you were asleep and caused mayhem.

Of course if I was fined £80 for dropping litter, maybe I could walk into the nearest shop and ask for £80 out of the till to pay it.

The Police wouldn't do anything. Would they?

- Barbara Brown, Southport, UK

Now that might very well start happening. Except, of course, they won't be "asking."

What planet are the police living on at the moment. They're giving burglars a licence to rob knowing that they are not going to get any punishment. What deterrent is a caution?

Perhaps if they started nipping crime in the bud with big sentences or fines, it might deter people. Everything is in favour of the villain and no rights to the victim.

- Carol Broadhurst, Barnsley, South Yorkshire

What planet are you living on, Carol? The police can only do as they are instructed. It's not their decision. The "license to rob" comes from the Home Office, not the cops.

But that brings up a good point. It's time, once again, to replay Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing:

• The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
  
  
• The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
  
  
• Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
  
  
• The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  
  
• Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
  
  
• Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
  
  
• Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  
  
• Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  
  
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Here's a quiz: How many of Sir Robert's principles have been violated so far?

"Courage."

Perky Katie Couric has acknowledged that she's leaving NBC to become the anchor of CBS's evening news, and one of the talking-heads for 60 Minutes.

That whirring sound you hear is Edward R. Murrow spinning in his grave.

I HATE Spring!.

This is the second night in a row I've awoken at 12:30AM unable to breathe. Tonight, nasal spray opened my sinuses OK, which then proceeded to flow like a river down my throat, causing uncontrollable coughing. So, here I sit at 1:48AM waiting for the Sudafed to kick in so I can get a couple of hours of restless sleep before I have to go to work and sit at my desk fighting to stay awake.

Spring SUCKS.

The Answer You're Looking for, Glenn, is "Yes."

Glenn Reynolds writes about NBC's Dateline program which is looking to put some Muslims wearing wires into an upcoming NASCAR crowd to see if they can bait some rednecks. Glenn asks (rhetorically, I'm certain):

does this mean (1) NBC's news is bravely independent of NBC's business interests, because they're willing to stick it to NASCAR; (2) NBC's news is only willing to stick it to NASCAR because NBC no longer has much of a business interest here; or (3) NBC's news is just as clueless as NBC's sports?

The answer is "Yes."

Uncommon Voices.

Voices of reason that, surprisingly, actually hit the news media.

I haven't said anything about the recent Seattle mass shooting. Others have done yeoman's service at that (yes, Jeff, I mean you, and you're not alone). Of course there was the usual dancing in the blood of the slain by the gun ban advocates, but there were two voices in the din that spoke sense. The first was from last week's issue of the Seattle Times, an op-ed by Knute Berger:

There are two typical reactions in the wake of last weekend's murder spree.

One is the impulse to turn this into a morality tale of drugs, guns, and out-of-control youth. The Nannytownies are already finding it hard to resist a story line that suggests our collective guilt is due to a failure of public policy. If only we had the proper restrictions in place, we could have saved the lives of these young people. The Seattle Times argues for a new, tough look at the teen dance ordinance; antigun groups are using the events to appeal for tougher gun laws. But raves don't kill people; people kill people. And if you think gun control could have prevented this crime, consider that Huff's arsenal included a baseball bat and a machete. This guy was going to find a way to kill, no matter what.

I strongly recommend you read the whole piece.

The second is by the mother of someone who was at the party, but was spared. The Seattle Times published her letter. The pertinent excerpt:

Today, I want the world to know that I'm angry.

I'm not angry at the things everyone is talking about, though. I'm not angry at the guns; the guns did not shoot at my son and kill his friends. I'm not angry at the after-hours parties, because billions of people of all ages have survived them. I'm not angry at the raves, drugs, alcohol, teenage rebellion, knives, bats, cars, etc., etc., etc.

I'm angry with Kyle Huff. Kyle Huff decided he wanted to end my son's life. Kyle Huff decided to kill all of those kids. Not his arsenal, not his family, not alcohol, not drugs. Not anything or anyone except Kyle Huff. I'm angry with everyone who is trying to make themselves feel better about this by blaming anything or anyone except the person responsible.

When are we as human beings going to stop making excuses for our behavior and the behavior of others?

Another RTWT.

Just thought you might be interested that it wasn't all a one-note symphony like it usually is.

Got Broadband?.

Watch Penn & Teller's Showtime show "Bullshit!" episode #309 - Gun Control. It runs 28 minutes. Worth your time, but not for those with dial-up.

So Much for Condi's Defense of the Right to Arms.

One can consider the source, The Guardian, but it's given as an actual quote:

Iraq's interior ministry is refusing to deploy thousands of police recruits who have been trained by the US and the UK and is hiring its own men and putting them on the streets, according to western security advisers.

The move is frustrating US and British efforts to build up a non-sectarian Iraqi police force which would not be infiltrated by partisan militias.

The disclosure highlights growing US and British concern about the role of militias in sectarian killings, and their links to senior Iraqi politicians. "You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

I shouldn't be surprised. You don't achieve high office in government without being a Statist of some form or another.

Quote of the Week of the Day.

Since I already had a "Quote of the Week..."

From Albion's Seedling:

Consider that effective enforcement would have to create a means of permitting employers to verify the eligibility of a job candidate, which means either a genuinely forgery-proof national ID card and/or an effective, accurate data base of all eligible US nationals (and everybody, even the blondest guëro, would have to present verification). As currently proposed, this would be done by the Department of Homeland Security. Presumably, implementation would be provided by the Effective Government Fairy.

Again, read the whole thing.

When the Serial Number is Stamped on It, It's a Firearm, Dammit.

Religious discussions aside, this is supposed to be a firearm and rights-oriented blog. I've been following Michael Bane's coverage of the recent BATF persecution of gunsmiths through the typical behavior of regulating bodies - changing the rules without warning, then going after everyone now "in violation."

When does customization of a firearm become manufacturing? That seemingly simple question is occupying the near undivided attention of the firearms industry. Observers say it is a question with the potential to become a firestorm that could put custom gunsmiths out of business; if not behind bars.

The controversy began with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms inspection of Competitive Edge Gunworks in Bogard, Missouri. BATF and tax agents appeared and began examining the company's records. When they finished, owner Larry Crow was told he potentially faced felony charges for manufacturing firearms without a license.

So the BATF'ers want to make customizing a gun on which the excise tax has already been paid a crime? The guy that built my AR-15 up from a bare Bushmaster lower is a manufacturer? The 'smith that rebarrelled my 1896 Swedish Mauser is a manufacturer? I'm a manufacturer for putting a new barrel, scope, stock, and Volquartsen trigger group on the already taxed 10/22 receiver myself?

Here's the deal: When the original manufacturer stamps a serial number on the portion of the gun the BATF deems "the firearm," the frame of a 1911, for example, or the receiver of a bolt-action rifle, or the lower of my AR, then it is legally a "gun." If the manufacturer completes the assembly of the firearm - barrel, trigger group, stock - they pay the Internal Revenue Service an 11% tax on the value of the entire weapon. If they sell just the receiver, they pay the tax on the value of the receiver.

It sounds as though the BATF wants to claim that custom gunsmiths who start from a bare frame or receiver should be paying the 11% tax on the completed gun they deliver to the customer. It's a case of "We've never required this before, but we do now! And it's retroactive to whenever we say it is!" It sounds as though they're saying "The American public is being bilked out of thousands in tax money!"

They're not after the taxes, they're out to shut down licensed gunsmiths. Changes in how the rules were interpreted - not changes in federal law - resulted in the number of licensed firearms dealers declining from 245,000 in 1994 to 54,902 in 2005. Now they want to put gunsmiths - another licensee - out of business, and possibly into jail.

They want to change the rules? Fine. The tax is on the firearm - the part with the serial number. Period.

Write your congresscritters. Call them.

Often.

Well, Apparently I've Offended Again.

Not that I didn't expect that. Fran Porretto has asked specifically that I not comment on his "Sunday Ruminations," and I will state right up front that he makes no direct attribution to either me or my recent post Why I Am an Atheist, but today's post by Fran includes this quote, in large, bold, bright blue letters:

But one ought to look carefully at such things before running off at the mouth. In particular, one ought to exhibit a trace of humility about one's outside-observer's position:

"If I, an outsider, am correct in thinking that what I observe is pointless, does it not imply that the persons who voluntarily participate in it must necessarily be idiots? Were I to find non-idiots among them and (gasp!) ask what sustenance they draw from these endlessly repeated forms, what might they say?"

This question apparently does not occur to many of those who deride the Church.

(*Sigh*)

I have to assume this is directed at me in particular, though it is generic in tone. I won't respond in Fran's comments as requested, but I won't let this go without response at all.

No, Fran. It does not imply that those who voluntarily participate must necessarily be idiots. It doesn't even imply that they might be idiots. It implies only that they believe in something I am unable to believe in.

Does the fact that I am unable to believe imply that I must be mentally defective in some way? It seems the door must swing both ways.

As to the question unasked: "(W)hat sustenance (do) they draw from these endlessly repeated forms?" I need not ask it. The forms give you comfort. They draw you closer to your fellow believers. You said it yourself:

Formalisms and rituals have several known effects upon the mind. They're calming, promote peace and order among their participants, and provide a form of psychic refreshment unavailable from informal activities.

I'm quite aware of that, and I don't denigrate it. As I said in Why I Am an Atheist, I understand and believe that religion - particularly the Christian faiths - are symbiotic. That implies beneficial.

And that's all I'm going to say on this topic at this point.

First Van der Leun Channels Ginsberg, Now Gregory P Josefowicz...

...who is President/CEO of Borders. Excerpt:

You want this shit to stop and people able to draw and publish what they want anywhere in the world at any time without being afraid of getting a bread knife in gut from some hyperventilating Islamic idiotarian with a religiously implanted mental disorder? Start getting governments that can grow a pair at home as well as overseas, and start kicking some Muslim ass whenever and wherever this crap gets started. Don't come bitching to me that Borders has to step up and take the hit.

Is it really the case that your guys expect me, after months of watching this global governmental cowardice in the face of Islamic intimidation go down, to pin a big "Kick Me" sign on the backs of every one of my employees? Dudes, I worked in the grocery business for most of my career and if I am the last line of defense here, log off and head for the mountain redoubt with a box lunch because the terrorists have won.

I can't believe that your guys expect me to step up and make my company the front line of defense against the Muslim hordes which, as far as I can see, get a free pass to do whatever they want whenever they show up in groups of like two?

I read the New York Times and the Washington Post and I didn't see these cartoons in those papers. Maybe I missed them. Were they in the Sports section under "Global Riot League Scores Today?" Maybe they were. I can't keep track of who's a coward and who's a hero in this whole thing outside of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. All in all, I'm not really getting that safe and secure feeling out of the State Department or the White House these days, you know what I mean?

RTWT. I mean it.

More Fuel for the Fire...

It seemed topical...

I Almost Forgot!. Another CCW State!

Today Nebraska voted to join Kansas and become the 37th "shall-issue" state. Both were previously "no-issue" states. This leaves only Wisconsin and Illinois as the remaining holdouts, and nine states remain as "may-issue." As noted before, Vermont and Alaska require no permit for concealed carry, so the map has changed again! (At least, it will effective 1/1/07.)

Of course Omaha will opt out, so if you live there you're SOL. I guess they'll post big signs on the way in, "NO GUNS ALLOWED."

Yeah. That'll work. Look at D.C. and Chicago.

Quote of the Week

I've been reading Orson Scott Card's Shadow of the Giant, the fourth (I think) book in the Shadow series that he wrote as a sequel to the Ender's Game series. If you're not familiar with them, I strongly recommend Ender's Game. You can skip Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead, if you'd like, and jump directly to Ender's Shadow and its sequels. I find Card to be a hit-and-miss author, my personal tastes I suppose, but these books are quite good and I think everyone should read Ender's Game.

Anyway, reading through Shadow of the Giant I came across two passages quite close together that resonated with me, all spoken by one of the main characters, Peter Wiggin:

(America) was a nation created out of nothing - nothing but a set of ideals that they never measured up to. Now and then they had great leaders, but usually nothing but political hacks, and I mean right from the start. Washington was great, but Adams was paranoid and lazy, and Jefferson was as vile a scheming politician as a nation has ever been cursed with.

...

America shaped itself with institutions so strong that it could survive corruption, stupidity, vanity, ambition, recklessness, and even insanity in its chief executive.

--

Islam has never learned how to be a religion. It's a tyranny by its very nature. Until it learns to let the door swing both ways, and permit Muslims to decide not to be Muslims without penalty, then the world has no choice but to fight against it in order to be free.

Just thought I'd share.