There’s an unbelievable story circulating among our media that a young man was shot near the entrance of a Harvard University dormitory. It can’t possibly be true because guns are banned on campus and we all know that gun bans stop gun crimes.
The Senate has approved a credit card reform bill with an amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-OK) which would definitively allow states’ firearms laws to apply to national parks. Just last year over 6,000 felonies were committed in national parks, many of them rather violent (rape, robbery, and kidnapping). The federal government can’t possibly pay for the manpower to provide protection for park visitors. The Coburn amendment would change the current restriction (no handguns, period) so that individuals who are allowed to carry a handgun per state statute would be allowed to carry in national parks.
As a simple example, concealed carry permit holders are convicted of gun crimes at a far lower rate than the US population at large. (Gun grabbers can start their whining now, but it’s true.) Allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks would not only not make our parks less safe, it would allow us to legally provide the protection for ourselves and our families that our federal and state governments simply cannot.
Write your House representative and urge him to support passage of this bill with the Coburn amendment. You can find the contact info for your rep here (if you don’t know your ZIP+4 there’s a link on the page that will give you that number). If, like me, you’re a Republican represented by a rather liberal Democrat, let him know that passage of this bill with the amendment would demonstrate true Congressional bipartisan effort as promised by The Messiah. (OK, I didn’t use that exact terminology in my letter.) Conservatives aren’t thrilled with the credit card bill. Liberals aren’t thrilled (alright, they’re outright terrified) by the Coburn amendment. Passing the bill as is would go a long way toward mollifying the 70%+ of Americans who consider personal gun ownership a Constitutional right. (And ease up the market pressure on those Federal 230 grain Hydra-Shok rounds I prefer. 😉 )
A pair of thieves try to steal an orange grove owner’s SUV, which was parked in a barn on his property. When it appeared they were going to run him over he fired a handgun, killing the passenger. The CNN reporter displays apparent surprise that he won’t be charged with a crime. Fortunately for the victim (that would be the SUV owner for those who aren’t clear) Florida has strong Castle and “No Retreat” laws to protect him.
You have to love the gun-grabbing Brady Campaign’s spin on the incident:
The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted “no retreat” laws, which some call “shoot-first” laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.
“The shoot-first law is not needed,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. “This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander,” he said.
As is usual for this group, the statement is a deliberate lie and, as CNN so often does, the reporter let him get away with it.
First, “No Retreat” laws do not “extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.” Rather, they remove the requirement of retreat when a victim is in a place he has a legal right to be. The right to defend yourself in public existed prior to enactment of the “No Retreat” law, but previously you had to demonstrate that you had done everything in your power to flee the situation first. This gives a blatantly unfair advantage to criminals, who are often stronger and faster than their victims. Turning to flee gives the criminal time to close the distance with the victim and press the attack directly. Now victims can use that time, instead, to present a weapon for self defense. That change in law was most certainly needed. (Note that, in any case, this crime was perpetrated on the victim’s own property rather than in public.)
Second, Florida’s laws do not allow indiscriminate use of a handgun. In order to avoid prosecution, the victim must have reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Further, Florida has nothing on the books which would prevent prosecution for shooting bystanders. Gun owners are responsible for every bullet they fire, regardless of intent. In this case the criminals had a deadly weapon (the SUV) and were approaching the victim—a classic case of failure in the victim selection process which resulted in a dead criminal.
How do you repel pirates? Fire back. Seems too simple, no? My only criticism is the choice of weapons:
A team of Israeli guards hired by the vessel’s owners immediately began firing back with pistols and spraying the attackers with fire hoses.
The security team should have been armed with, at the least, Uzis or similar compact submachine guns. They were, however, effective.
Ignoring the obvious, the “head of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme” offered this gem:
“There are a number of other methods which can be used to deter the pirates, having weapons on board is dangerous because it raises the stakes for the pirates,” he said.
“There is a far higher risk that a crew member of a merchant vessel, or a passenger, could die if the pirates feel they must fight harder to win the ship.”
Or they might, um, give up and look for an easier target.
That may sound callous, but as we “celebrate” the ten-year anniversary of the murder of 12 students and a teacher at Columbine, make note that their deaths resulted in absolutely zero improvements in the safety of our children at school. Think about it for a moment then send a letter to your state representatives and school boards. What, exactly, have they done to make our kids safer?
I should note the single exception, at least as reported in the American media: Harrold Independent School District (Harrold, TX) has changed their policies to allow teachers who have a CCW and who have taken specialized courses to carry concealed weapons on campus. Sadly their lone example of clear thinking doesn’t appear to be contagious.
Make sure to hug/kiss your kids goodbye before school each morning. There are a couple dozen parents in Columbine who can’t enjoy that simple pleasure.
Mexican authorities have arrested a woman in possession of an anti-aircraft gun, grenades and a grenade launcher. Not surprisingly, the article eventually gets around to the usual lefty bashing of America’s lax gun laws being responsible for arming the Mexican drug cartels. You can be sure that the AA gun, grenades, and launcher weren’t purchased in a gun shop here and smuggled across the border. Weapons of that type simply aren’t available in stores. So where did they come from?
Authorities did not release any other details about the gun, including its make, where it was manufactured, or where it was sold.
But of course. We can blame America for smuggled small arms, but can’t identify the origin of heavy weapons. Guess what? If the drug cartels can get their hands on arms like these, it really doesn’t even matter if we completely seal our border with Mexico—they’ll get their small arms elsewhere. The real problem is a dysfunctional Mexican government and until that fact becomes a regular headline, and is dealt with, the cartel violence isn’t going to end.
After a brutal attack which left a man dead and his wife in serious condition in a hospital, the residents of a northern Virginia suburb held a march to…well, I’m not sure about the purpose exactly.
“We’re taking our neighborhood back,” said Lansdowne resident Beverly Bradford, who sent out a notice to residents last week calling for the gathering.
How they intended to achieve that goal wasn’t entirely clear. Marching with candles and flashlights is nice, but it doesn’t do anything to make your area safer. The goblins who perpetrate these kinds of beatings don’t really care how many verses of Kumbaya you sing even if, as in this case, you throw in an original verse for good measure.
Arm yourself. Get some good training and a CCW permit. Works better than candles and choruses.
Of course that’s not what the headline reads, but it’s the underlying truth. Authorities in KS are warning college women of a possible serial rapist suspected of 13 rapes during school breaks over the past 8 years. All the usual precautions are urged, but of course we won’t allow these vulnerable young ladies to do the one thing that would significantly reduce their likelihood of becoming victims: arm themselves. That would be too logical (and effective).
As in, gun control means hitting your target. There was another terrorist attack by a nutjob plowing a bulldozer through a couple police cars and into a bus full of schoolgirls. What slowed the goblin down long enough for the police to finish him off? A civilian taxi driver carrying a concealed handgun.
Self-defense works, folks, because even when the police are present, they sometimes can’t respond as quickly as an alert, armed civilian.
A student at a Connecticut college was called in to the police station for questioning after giving a classroom speech advocating concealed carry for students and staff. The cops were called by the class professor, who seems to believe the speech was somehow threatening. No surprise that neither the prof nor the university would comment on the situation, as moral cowardice runs rampant in our institutions of supposedly higher learning.
At too many of our universities free speech is only encouraged when it agrees with the schools’ liberal agendas.