I Like Bigger Numbers!

In most cases, the bigger, the better. I remember when, after buying that box of Cor-Bon .40 for that young woman I've had my eye on for a while, I opened up the box and examined the goods.

After being used to .44s and .45s., .40s seemed so...small!

Anyway, this has nothing to do with comparing calibers, but rather some numbers I've been coming across while hunting up stuff for the blog.

Specifically, the number of guns in this country. If you remember last year, I quoted the Brady Bunch as estimating some 200 million guns in this country. Recently, though, I've seen someone quote 240 million, and while watching a fuller version of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t concerning gun control, the number seems to have grown to 250 million.

This drives down the ratio of guns used in violent crime to overall guns in the country. If the 250 million estimate is correct, then the 277,868 incidents of violent crimes involving a firearm comprise a miniscule .11% of all known firearms in this country.

And for those of you who haven't seen that Penn & Teller feature, here it is in three parts. Worth a look.

Part 1:




Part 2:



And Part 3:

Still More Fallout

This time from a forked-tongue apparatchik with little regard for Civil Rights (h/t: War on Guns).

Funny how tragedy fuels libs to jump to the most extreme of conclusions, without any thought to its effect on our liberties, save some oblique disparagement of the "gun lobby" who would no doubt work overtime to prevent such an overt flouting of Federal Law.

But look at this...no discussion over the Constitution whatsoever. It isn't mentioned once.

And, naturally, with that kind of disregard, the sort of scenario Mr. Simpson describes could very well happen:

- Steep financial penalties and a year in prison for exercising a human right.
- Government control of personal property.
- Police Squads searching and seizing personal property, including scenes like this little jewel:

On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

Thank God this moron isn't in office, nor running for office.

Campus RKBA Roundup #8

The Fallout from Blacksburg Continues...

From the University of Oregon, we get a threefer from the Daily Emerald. The first, appearing in April 23. Elon Glücklich identifies two major parts to tragedies like this: The disturbed individual and the weapon used. Hmmm, nothing new nor necessarily profound there.

Since (says Glucklich) you can't do so well identifying a potential killer, then you "logically" must control the tools they can use. So, it seems to him that the threat he has chosen to major on are inanimate objects which don't suffer from disaffection (kind of reminds me of the "why beer is better than women" line of jokes). And, to get to them, he will gladly call the Second Amendment outdated:

The Second Amendment used to make a lot of sense. When I say "used to" I mean about 200 years ago. The United States of America was a lot different back then.

Is this sounding like a broken record to you folk? It would seem that our high schoolers are by and large spending four years under some sort of an academic Gleichschaltung, because I am hearing the exact same lines of reasoning from all these anti-2A positions.

My brother's girlfriend is a public school teacher. I'll have to check around for some handbook or something when I go visit them in a few weeks.

The article elicited two responses, explaining some of the shortcomings of Glucklich's thinking. The first response points to the need to consider the disturbed individual, and blames intolerance for Cho's state of mind (teasing, harassment, racism). In passing, he mentions the deterrent value of weaponry.

The second blasts Glucklich's ignorance on self-defense situations. We've heard and understand these sort of arguments, but it may be a first to an Ivory Towerer like Glucklich.

Ohio: The broken record plays over at Bowling Green, starting off with a very whimsical account of having attended a candlelight vigil for the victims over at VT. But then the emotionalism disengages the higher functions as the writer laments over how easy it is to get a gun at a pawn shop, and that some screening process is needed, without understanding that Cho's gun purchases were done completely by the book, including background checks.

However, Cho could have been denied the purchase by Federal law had some consideration been given to two stalking incidents that happened in 2005. However, this is definitely a case of too little, too late.

In my former home state of North Carolina, we find one short but to the point opinion expressed in the Seahawk:

Ted Nugent alluded to on CNN that gun-free zones could become targets for those who already plan illegal actions. If someone wants less resistance to his or her violent force, the best place to be is where no one can fire back at you.

But, on the flip side, a student at Wake Forest attempts a different approach at the broken record. But instead of attacking 2A outright, he vilifies the NRA and another organization (National Association of Firearms Retailers) as part of some sort of conspiracy to keep our country dangerous.

He laments the sunset of the AWB 3 years ago: "This ban did not threaten anyone’s right to bear arms; it merely restricted the purchase of automatic clips for handguns, as well as semi-automatic assault rifles." What he failed to see was the ban's ineffectiveness at stopping gun-related crime.

He says in the next sentence: "Even in the wake of horrific mass-murders, no major action has been taken to limit the availability of the weapons that facilitate these tragedies." Erm, Matthew, the AWB was in full force in April of 1999. But yet, it didn't prevent Columbine.

Come to think of it, the AWB didn't prevent any of the following school shootings, either:

Richland High School, Lynnville, TN (1995)--1 student, 1 teacher killed.
Frontier Junior High, Moses Lake, WA (1996)--2 students, 1 teacher killed.
Bethel, AK (1997)--Principal, 1 student killed.
Pearl High School, Pearl, MS (1997)--2 students killed, 7 others wounded.
Heath High School, West Paducah, KY--3 students killed, 5 wounded.
Stamps, AR (1997)--2 students killed
Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, AR (1998)--4 students and 1 teacher killed, 10 others wounded.

And some 21 others that happened during the years of the AWB. Bill Clinton's words are ringing in my head now: "Now tell me that this bill will not prevent crime!"

Point being, Matthew--the government's actions to restrict gun ownership in the interests of preventing crime have been, by and large, impotent.

Not a Force Field, but still straight out of Science Fiction

In order to deal with RPG threats, Israel is developing an active point defense against these weapons to outfit its AFVs.

Now, this link's title is a little misleading. It and the commentator mention something about "force fields," but it actually uses a shotgun-like blast to set off RPGs before they contact the armor.

I saw this very thing featured in the Hammer's Slammers series of novels and short stories some 20 years ago, where their tanks and combat cars are outfitted with radar-triggered point-defense mines to destroy incoming "buzzbombs."

Upcoming 20/20 spot on firearms?

According to a post I read on packing.org, 20/20 was looking for stories pertaining to the successful use of firearms in self defense. Check out this post to see the submissions and reactions of some.

Additionally, someone posted another blog which may be worth watching. It's the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.

Nuge vs. UCLA prof on Gun Issues

Source: Little Green Footballs.


UCLA Prof: Guns are the issue. They kill people. Too many of them are around. Ordinary citizens can't handle them. It makes my hair stand on end just thinking about it.

Professor Hatter: If guns kill people, mine are defective. If they are truly the issue, why are 99.87% of the ones in the U.S. not used in crimes? Please qualify the statement about "ordinary citizens." If you're setting yourself as the standard of what a citizen should be, and attributing your discomfort and inability to handle firearms to the whole of the U.S. population, that is pure Ivory Tower Arrogance.

As for the hair, it isn't anything a dab of Brylcreem couldn't take care of.

The Nuge:

"Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

"Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people."

The Hat: preach it, brotha!

While you're visiting LGF, check out the Penn & Teller vid on gun control. I had been looking for it online for ages!

RKBA Round Up 7.5

The "making up for lost time" edition.

First, I want to dedicate #7 and #7.5 to a professor who gave his life in defense of his students:

Liviu Librescu (1930-2007)
A survivor (Holocaust, Cold-War Communist Romania) who gave his all to help the next generation do the same. Because life is worth defending. L'shanna tova tikotavu.

Continuing to scour the op-ed pages of our nation's college campuses, we start off at Texas A&M with a piece saying "Guns for everyone will just make it worse." Interesting POV from a state noted for very positive stance on RKBA, but then again, the ivory tower of academia doesn't necessarily reflect the sensibilities of surrounding society.

A very short blurb. The only remark of interest was another tired assertion that "Statistics show that the more guns a population has, the more likely people will die or get injured by one." Yep, automobile deaths and injuries have proven that, yet we have made no strides towards stricter car control.

And, if you want to compare statistics, remember that the Brady Bunch claims there are some 200 million guns in the U.S. The 2004 FBI stats I looked at last year report 277,868 violent crimes involving a firearm. That amounts to .138% of all the firearms owned in this country. That is not a bad rate.


Now, a slightly more sensible, if not rather pessimistic, editorial comes from elsewhere in the state, in UT-Arlington's Shorthorn. The subtext of the title reads "School shootings will continue, and we have only ourselves to look to."

There is a collective moan among the Jonesboro, Columbine and now Virginia Tech generation. We resist the obligatory gun-control debate, which is ineffective on a national level. We believe the Second Amendment is here to stay, and that Virginia Tech’s tragedy will not be the catalyst for gun-control reform, despite becoming the deadliest shooting in American history.

While he understands that 2A is not the source of the problem, he doesn't really pose any solutions, other than some more navel-gazing.

Meanwhile, over at UT-El Paso, the editor in chief of the Prospector decides to honk the gun control horn, especially since 2008 is not that far away: "The first step should be taking a closer look at the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and make sure we elect a leader in the 2008 presidential election who will take concrete actions towards mending our outdated gun laws."

Again, another "novel" idea from a captive of the Ivory Tower. Rapunzel here has dropped her brains out the window.

I get a little irked whenever I hear these elite-wannabes talk about "taking a closer look" at our "outdated" Second Amendment. Would these same types also consider due process outdated? How about free speech? Protection against search and seizure?

Let me again quote Alan Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Another response to the VT massacre, this one coming from the University of Pittsburgh's Pitt News, was written by someone who identifies more with the gun-control crowd, but interestingly enough states that gun control would not work in the U.S., simply because firearms are too embedded in our culture. He does a lot of comparisons with Western Europe, whether it be a lament that we are not more like Europe or not, I don't know.

An attempt to take the political pulse in light of the VT shootings is featured in Swarthmore College's The Phoenix. There, the writer seems to show a certain amount of astonishment at what seems to be reticence of politicians on both sides to address gun issues in light of the shootings. But I think he fails to see just how around-the-way most politicians have been over this issue, and seem to have realized the rather imprudent practice of leveraging a tragedy's emotional impact for the sake of furthering a political agenda.

Furthermore, the writer seems to be largely clueless about the state of gun rights support in Pennsylvania:

House Bill 760 was recently introduced in order to institute certain reforms, but despite Governor Rendell’s support it will face serious contention from the General Assembly, which is mostly comprised of lawmakers that support gun rights. The fact is that in Pennsylvania, as elsewhere, the minority is louder than the majority that supports gun control.

I don't think the author really thought about what he was writing when he typed out the above. He claims that PA's gun rights advocates are actually a minority (without giving any evidence--a common propaganda tactic to make it look like you have the moral high ground, when in fact, you're grasping at straws), but the previous sentence states that elected officials are mostly pro-2A. Who elected those officials? The minority?

I know Pennsylvania to be a state where there are a lot of hunting enthusiasts, so I find his assumptions about the minority and majority to be another case of ignorance borne out of Ivory-Tower isolationism.

More to come later this week, as I continue to search through the op-ed pages I can find online.