Look, idiot, here in central Pennsylvania, we have lots and lots of guns, and very little crime, absolutely none compared to you. Why is that? Don’t try to answer: That’s what is known as a rhetorical question.
Here’s why. We. Don’t. Tolerate. Crimimals.
Go read the whole thing. RWP sums up the difference between crime-ridden Pennsylvania and the relatively peaceful rest of the state…and it has nothing to do with who owns more guns.
Sebastian analyzes the difference in donations and spending between the NRA Political Victory Fund and Brady Campaign “Voter Education Fund”.
Here’s a brief summary:
Total Receipts
Brady: $73
NRA: $8.4 million
Total Spent
Brady: $3,000
NRA: $3.7 million
Total Contributed to Federal Candidates
Brady: $500
NRA: $413,000
Total Received From Individual Donors >$200
Brady: $0
NRA: $205,000
It sure looks like the pro-rights side is actually composed of real people.
And people why the NRA (and by extension the pro-rights side) has so much clout with legislators…
Gun control hasn’t worked as a remedy for crime. So what makes anyone think the answer is more gun control?
-Steve Chapman, of the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board.
Hat tip to David Codrea for the link.
From KYW Radio:
Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell made another pitch for gun control legislation outside the state capitol on Monday, during the annual ceremony honoring falling police officers.
Rendell says the gun that cut down Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski (see related story) was a Chinese assault weapon, and he says that there used to be a ban on importing assault weapons:
“And yet in 2004, the Congress of the United States — often some of the very same congressmen who would come and attend ceremonies like this — let the assault weapons ban lapse.”
The governor acknowledged that the gun that killed Liczbinski was brought into the country “well before that action,” but says it’s symptomatic of the refusal of lawmakers to provide “maximum protection” to law enforcement:
Emphasis mine. Basically, he’s saying that the 1994-2004 “assault weapons ban” would have had no effect whatsoever on this particular incident.
“If we really want to pay honor and tribute to the memory of those 703 police officers who have given their lives, we will suck it in, do the right thing, and pass laws that would give our police officers out on the street, protecting us every day, the maximum amount of protection we can.”
I know several police officers, and have nothing but the highest respect for officers who risk their lives each day to keep the peace and maintain public order.
I want them to to have the resources they need to stay safe and be able to do their job, and for the most part, the public has agreed: modern police have high-quality firearms and ammunition, body armor, tasers, batons, pepper spray, radios, in-car wireless data terminals, and a whole host of other equipment, training, and resources to help them be safer and more effective.
Even so, police work is not risk-free. When your job requires that you interact with the scum of the earth on a daily basis, there’s a not-insignificant probability that you will be involved in a violent confrontation. It’s just part of the job — no amount of laws or equipment can remove that risk entirely.
So-called “assault weapons” are common firearms that have simple cosmetic differences from more “traditional” looking, non-banned firearms. They are identical in nearly all functional aspects, and differ only in appearance. Many features on such guns exist for ergonomics and safety, but have no effect on lethality. Restricting guns with such features from ownership by lawful citizenry from 1994-2004 had essentially no effect on crime or their use in police shootings. Their use in crime is statistically insignificant.
Renewing an ineffective law is foolish. Doing so when it significantly restricts the rights of law-abiding, honest folks is malicious. Dancing in the blood of a murdered cop to push for such a renewal is abhorrent.
Hat tip to Sebastian for the link to the news article.
In an incident reminiscent of the DEA agent shooting himself in the foot, the Riverdale, Utah chief of police demonstrates how not to clear a jam.
Actually, he didclear the jam…by firing the gun into his own ankle. But it’s clearly not a recommended way of doing it.
Lesson learned:
Power comes with responsibility, but responsibility cannot exist without power. The two are inextricably linked.
Responsibility demands power.
The powerless don’t think big, responsibly defiant thoughts.
They think little, compliant “please don’t hurt me” thoughts.
I think this pretty much falls in with the definition of PSH:
The 60-year-old Vietnam veteran and former Marine was arrested at his home Tuesday and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct after two village trustees complained that, during a heated meeting, Kachka pointed his finger at them while wearing a shirt with a Marine Corps insignia that said, “Don’t Move. If You Run, You’ll Only Die Tired.”
Trustees allege Kachka’s thumb was raised and his index finger extended, as though he were firing a gun.
The meeting at which this occurred was on a Thursday, and Mr. Kachka was arrested the following Tuesday.
It’d be one thing to arrest someone immediately if they were being disorderly, but to wait five days? That seems silly in the extreme, considering all he was doing was pointing.
Hopefully the absurdity of this situation is evident to the court, and they promptly dismiss the case against Mr. Kachka.
Much like Kevin at The Smallest Minority, I extend the following invitation to the general public (including members of the media):
If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ and/or Phoenix, AZ metropolitan areas, I invite you to go shooting for a day.
I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction.
Simply contact me and we can (hopefully) find a mutually-agreeable time and location.
Over the years, I’ve noticed that many media outlets (newspapers, TV/radio stations, etc.) have made several factual errors when reporting on firearms.
While some of these errors are fairly minor and hardly worth mentioning, several have been incorrect in critical ways.
For example, many news outlets reported that the sunset of the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons ban” (”AWB”) would result in new machine guns being legal for private citizens to purchase. This is not true; the AWB did not apply to machine guns (which are regulated under a separate law created in 1934 and which remains in effect), but many of the guns that were restricted under the AWB have a similar appearance to machine guns, hence the confusion.
Incorrect reporting of such facts can result in uninformed and/or misinformed decisions by the citizenry and legislatures, which can seriously affect millions of American citizens and businesses.
Thus, in the interest of providing accurate, non-biased information to the public, I make the following offer to any and all media organizations, large or small, wherever they exist in the world*:
At no financial cost, I will…
To take advantage of this offer, simply contact me within a reasonable period (I recommend at least a day or two at the bare minimum) before your deadline with any questions you might have. If, during the course of discussion, more questions or issues arise, I will be glad to assist you with those as well.
* While I welcome inquiries from around the world, I regret that I can only communicate in the English language.
From the AZCDL:
HB 2630, an AzCDL requested bill that reduces the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to a petty offense, was vetoed by the Governor on April 29, 2008. You can read her veto letter here: http://www.azleg.gov/govlettr/48leg/2R/HB2630.pdf .
HB 2630 would have reclassified carrying a concealed weapon without a permit as a petty offense, unless the violation occurred in the commission of, or attempted commission of, a “serious offense or violent crime”, in which case the CCW offense would have been a class 6 felony, or any other felony offense, in which case it would have remained a class 1 misdemeanor. In a nutshell, if you’re a bad guy carrying a concealed weapon, penalties would have been stiffened. If you’re a law-abiding citizen, it would have become a petty offense.
For those who don’t know, Arizona is an “open carry” state and no permit is required for openly carrying. However, if one’s shirt accidentally covers the gun, one is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Similarly, if the openly-carried gun is concealed from view in a car (I’m left-handed — if I’m stopped by a police officer, the gun is not readily visible from either side of the vehicle as it’s blocked by the door on the left and my body on the right), that’s a crime.
Heaven forbid that good guys who make an honest mistake be differentiated from criminals committing violent crime.
Oh well. Maybe it’ll pass the next time around.
Frankly, I don’t even see why permits should be necessary to carry. Vermont and Alaska don’t have permits (AK issues them for reciprocity with other states) and they don’t have any trouble. If people can open carry in AZ without any issues, why should carrying concealed be any different? The mere carriage of a firearm harms nobody.
The Arizona Rifleman is proudly hosted at
NearlyFreeSpeech
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
