Archive for December, 2004

December 13, 2004

Gullible? Nope. Concerned? Yup.

On the issue of self defense in England, I don’t think the gun bloggers are gullible. Tim Lambert thinks that they are. Tim notes (and I agree) that the British media is misrepresenting the law regarding self defense:

The Daily Telegraph’s campaign is nothing more than a beat up to create an issue to attack the government with. The truly disgraceful thing about their scare campaign is that it could convince people that self-defence is unlawful and frighten them out of defending themselves against an attacker, resulting in injury or even death of a crime victim.

That is, I think, a valid concern. In England, it is not illegal to defend yourself. However, under the letter of the law, it is quite difficult to legally defend yourself:

To show self-defence you must:

1. show that you reasonably fear immediate attack.
2. show that you had no alternative avenue of escaping the attack. If you can, you must run away.
3. your response must be proportionate to the threat. If someone threatens you with a balloon, you may not respond with a knife. If your own life is not under threat you cannot threaten somebody else’s life.

Fleeing is not conducive to any self defense. If you are attacked and your back is turned, you simply cannot effectively defend yourself. That combined with the fact that no one should be forced to flee from their own home under rule of law, makes the assertion that people in the UK already have the right to defend themselves against burglars or anyone else who threatens them a bit misleading. So, in England, if you’re backed into a corner, you can defend yourself.

Odd

Where did the White House go?

Heh!

Proper parenting.

One man’s reasonable is another man’s piss off

XRLQ lists what he terms a few types of gun control that really do make sense, or at least should be given credit for not being inherently unreasonable. Publicola thinks he’s full of crap and calls a flag on the play for name calling. Give them a read. I left some comments at XRLQ’s.

XRLQ claims that the ideas aren’t necessarily ones that he agrees with but that they aren’t unreasonable. I tend to agree with the stated positions on background checks, CCW licenses, and gun bans for felons (depending on the felony and length of the ban). However, the disagreements come from:

Banning plastic guns: On the surface, reasonable sounding. Then the government will take over and determine what percentage of plastic without any regard for the gun’s ability to set off metal detectors. They do something similar now with imported semi-autos by mandating that only a certain number of parts can be foreign, as though that matters at all in terms of a gun’s functionality. Of course, these guns don’t exist so we may as well ban sharks with laser beams on their heads too. Also, given the spirit of what this ban attempts, what about pen guns, credit card guns, and briefcase guns? Currently, such guns require a $5 transfer tax and approval from the ATF.

Registration: I only oppose registration to the extent it could be a vehicle for confiscation, which is what registration has a history of becoming.

Assault rifles (real ones, not those lookalikes covered by the now dead assault weapons ban): I want the Hughes Amendment repealed and the $200 NFA tax repealed. There has been one NFA weapon used in a crime. The system seems to work.

DC gun ban: Repeal it.

Regular capacity magazines: I find this one to be unreasonable. First, what is a high capacity magazine? It’s a hard term to define. The restriction of 10 imposed by the Assault Weapons Ban was random or based what they thought congress would approve. An AR15 is designed with a 20 or 30 round magazine in mind. That is not high capacity that is regular capacity. Maybe it could mean Beta C mags, which hold 100 rounds (and, coincidentally, are hard to load).

The anti-gun crowd is not about reasonable gun control. The are about banning gun ownership outright. Any law that restricts gun ownership (no matter how unreasonable) gets their support. If they were serious about reasonable measures, maybe some compromise could be reached. But they are not.

XRLQ didn’t even mention the private transfer provision of the law (AKA gun show loophole).

Trying to find that Right To Hunt clause

In Chicago, people are protesting gun shops. As with most Illinois media stories regarding guns, this one starts with the sad tale of a man who got shot before actually getting to the rather stupid point:

Aref and dozens of others affiliated with United Power for Action and Justice stood outside Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale on Friday to announce that next year state and federal elected officials will be targeted in a concerted effort to make sure laws change so gun dealers are held accountable for weapons later involved in crimes.

United Power representatives said they have registered more than 11,000 new voters in an effort to force lawmakers to address the issue.

Chuck’s Gun Shop topped a report earlier this year by the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, which found 2,370 guns involved in crimes from 1996 to 2000 were traced back to Chuck’s.

But as Riverdale police officers manned the street opposite the gathering, protesters made it clear Chuck’s was only one example of a larger problem. Of the top 35 dealers that supplied crime-scene guns during the same time period, 13 are located in Illinois and Indiana, according to the report. Stores in Gary, Valparaiso, Lake Station and Griffith also made the list.

Tracing a gun’s origin to a shop typically doesn’t denote a problem with the shop, particularly when that shop is located in the murder and gun crime capital of the world. In the event (as is highly likely) that these crime guns were bought through straw purchases, it’s not the shop’s fault unless they were explicitly aware that straw purchases was taking place. More:

The group’s effort was spurred, in part, by recent setbacks, including last month’s Illinois Supreme Court dismissal of two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly allowing criminals to get guns. The group also blasted federal lawmakers for allowing the ban on assault rifles to expire and charged gun regulatory agencies with failing to curb the problem.

Now, the group is attempting to influence local and federal legislators. The article ends with:

Jim Horton, of Palos Heights, said he is an avid hunter and supports the right to bear arms. But at some point, the type of weapons sold and the intent for which they were manufactured has to be scrutinized, he said.

“Who goes hunting with handguns?” Horton said. “I’ve never gone hunting with a handgun in 35 years.”

Hunting with handguns is actually quite popular but it is irrelevant with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.

What he said

Owen Courreges:

Furthermore, the Brady Campaign seems to be saying that, since they believe the entire concept of the ‘milita’ is an anachronism, we are permitted to ignore the Second Amendment. Setting aside the obvious fact that the militia clause does not, textually, restrain the individual right laid out in the Second Amendment, the Brady Campaign is actually itself ignoring the milita clause because of their belief that it is outdated. This is surely impermissible. If I think free speech is outmoded, that doesn’t make for a legitmate constitutional argument that the First Amendment is irrelevant. (sic)

Yup. Read the whole thing.

Well, this is spooky

IRS cleared to employ private bill collectors:

When Reps. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., teamed up in September to get the House to pass an amendment blocking the use of private companies to collect back taxes from delinquent taxpayers, it seemed the Bush administration plan might be doomed for at least a year.

But in the final hours of drafting a 3,300-page spending bill last month, House and Senate negotiators eliminated Capito and Van Hollen’s handiwork, clearing the way for the Internal Revenue Service to hire commercial debt collectors. These private agents could keep as much as 25 percent of the amounts they recovered.

I have no doubt that private debt collectors will be more efficient than civil servants but that’s kind of the problem. This seems to open the door for abuse, particularly if compensation for the private collectors is excessively based on money collected. I tend to think a private company may be less inclined to follow appropriate laws of restraint that a government entity would follow.

Court: Denver it’s own country

No, really:

District Court judge finds “home rule” trumps state law

Doggone.

At least pit bulls, anyway, which can be legally banned from Denver, a Denver District Court ruled Thursday.

In upholding the city and county’s 15-year prohibition on pit bulls and related breeds, the court found that “home rule” gives Denver the right to ban specific breeds of dogs, even though a recent state law prohibited Denver and other cities and counties from doing so.

However, Denver cannot restrict temporary transportation of pit bulls through its borders, ruled District Judge Martin F. Egelhoff.

Aside from the fact that breed bans are pointless and ineffective, Denver’s home rule can trump state law? Seems a bit odd to me. What if Denver, say, made the sale, manufacture and marketing of cocaine legal? Talk about your slippery slope.

When City Planners Attack

This time, in Ohio:

The Milo Grogan neighborhood is organizing against a proposal for a new shopping center that would wipe out 200 homes through eminent domain.

Another city taking private property to hand over to another private individual.

Three guesses

what this is:

/ l;;xccx 4bf,rr6d,trct6y5gycggccrg6rcggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrcddd.vf xocccccccccccccccccccccxlko= jDWA/ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

December 10, 2004

If it’s too loud . . .

you’re too old:

The volume of a concert by the heavy-metal band Korn left Hillsborough County commissioners fuming and briefly had them considering getting a court order to halt future concerts at the amphitheater that hosted the group.

More than 50 residents — some living miles away — complained of booming noise and profanity-laced lyrics coming from the open-air Ford Ampitheatre at the Florida State Fairgrounds during this week’s concert.

“I came home from the hospital Tuesday (the day of the concert), and I couldn’t get to sleep,” resident Peg Sexton said. “I’ve never, ever had it so loud. It was like it was across the street. It’s unbelievable. We don’t get that noise from a thunderstorm.”

During an emergency meeting Thursday, County Commissioner Ronda Storms referred to venue owner Clear Channel Entertainment when she said: “A bane upon them; may the worms of your avarice consume your intestines, Clear Channel.”

The racket even shocked county Environmental Protection Commission officials, who this summer cited Clear Channel and the Florida State Fair Authority for violations of noise ordinances. The citation has been appealed.

I went to a Korn show back in the early 1990s (back when nobody had heard of them) and it pretty much rocked. I was younger then and the noise didn’t bother me. Actually, that was the last concert (if you can call it that, it was at a local small venue) I went to. I’m too old to metal and admit it. Ronnie James Dio, however, can’t. Have you seen the new video? Egad.

Like Kryptonite to integrity

A couple of bloggers apparently forgot that they have archives.

Fear Mongering

Jed notes the media, attempting to drum up ratings or fear, has exposed that an 80 year-old farmer can buy (gasp!) farm supplies. Shocking that those who need things to provide for their livelihood can, you know, get them.

Jed’s right. It’s not news. Nothing happened.

Oh, that anti-gun media

The Geek notes:

I’ve found it illuminating to browse the covers of Time magazine, whose editorial policy is that “gun control was too important for them to take an unbiased position.”

And check out the collection of Time covers.

Speaking of anti-gun media, read this too.

Like you and me, only better

Some Tennessee cops were decommissioned and placed on leave after carrying their guns in a bar (while off duty and drinking):

Undercover police detectives Ernest Cecil and Ulysses Hernandez had their guns and badges taken and were placed on administrative duty.

A bouncer for Club Hurricane, located on Second Avenue North, called for uniformed police officers after he bumped into Cecil and felt Cecil’s gun. Cecil identified himself as a police officer. The bouncer asked Cecil to leave the bar but he refused. That’s when the bouncer called for uniformed officers.

It is illegal for anyone to carry a weapon inside a bar. That includes police officers unless they are “on-duty and acting in their official capacities,” Police Chief Ronal Serpas said.

If that was me or you (and we weren’t drinking), we’d be in jail.

Speaking of stupid online polls that don’t mean anything

Check out the one in the top left corner. Oh, and as far as addressing the article, the toy gun would be the one with bright orange paint on the tip of the barrel, unless someone violated the law and painted it black.

Friend of the court

A Jersey legal firm has filed a friend of the court brief for the pending Kelo v. New London case:

An Atlantic City organization is getting involved in a Supreme Court case it says has ramifications for developments in South Jersey.

South Jersey Legal Services has filed an amici curiae – or friends of the court – brief in connection with a Connecticut eminent domain case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the organization’s deputy director, Douglas Gershuny, said Wednesday.

[snip]

South Jersey Legal Services’ suits also accuse Camden and Mount Holly of civil rights violations, as the two neighborhoods declared blights are minority neighborhoods.

I do wonder how much credence the SCOTUS puts in friend of the court documents?

Oh yeah, forgot to mention it

There’s a new blogger here. Fox meet blog. Blog meet Fox. However, I didn’t know he was a girl.

Losing your street cred

Via Smijer, Boortz, who claims to be a Libertarian when he’s more like a Republican who is slightly less critical of Republicans (or maybe he’s the stereotypical Libertarian and is just a Republican who smokes weed), has a poll on banning pit bulls. Unsurprisingly, his faux Libertarian minions seem to think they should be banned (currently 62% to 38%). Sayeth Boortz:

This time it happened in Orlando. A 4-year-old boy is now dead after a relative’s pit bull chomped down on his head. Don’t give me that BS about these pit bulls being just dandy if they’re raised right. It’s in their blood line. They’re killers. They’re bred to attack and to kill. No one owner, no matter how wonderful, is going to erase the vicious blood lust out of these dogs. My friend Bugsy … who unfortunately lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan where rock-n-roll seems to be king … says that these “damned psycho animals should be banned from being ANYWHERE other than prison yards.” Good line Bugs. ‘Bout time.

Boortz has donned his hysterical nanny hat and has taken someone’s talking points word for word. Pit bulls (and I mean the American Pit Bull Terrier since there is no breed called the Pit Bull) were bred, theoretically, from the cattle/hog dog that used to be the English Bulldog (the current freak of nature is not remotely similar to its former incarnation) but is now called the American Bulldog; and the Bull Terrier. The current Bull Terrier is a much friendlier version than its old counterpart, which was also bred for dog fighting and dog aggressiveness. The Bulldog was chosen due to it’s gameness (tolerance for pain) and sheer power (these are arguably the most powerful dogs on the planet, relative to their size). The Pit Bull was bred to fight other dogs due to its inherent dog aggressiveness and its tolerance for pain enabled it to stay in the fight longer. Pit bulls were not bred to attack people. In the hideous practice of dog fighting, you want a dog that is tolerant of people so that, when you break the fight up, the dog doesn’t attack the people breaking the fight up.

Pit bulls typically don’t play nice with other dogs. It’s in their nature. This can, to an extent, be mitigated by proper socialization but that should not be relied upon and owners should take care to supervise interaction with other dogs. Owners should also supervise the interaction of any dog with small children. Period.

Unfortunately for Pit Bulls, they attract owners who shouldn’t own any breed of dog, much less one with the power and gameness that these dogs have. They are also popular among criminals who gamble on dog fighting and drug dealers who keep near emaciated dogs to guard stashes. And, as breed bans have shown in the past, banning a breed is ineffective as criminals ignore it and other people, who want a bad ass dog, just switch to a number of other breeds. Of course, if your criteria for owning a dog is that it is a bad ass, you’re probably one of those people who shouldn’t own any dog.

Say, is Boortz pro-gun like me? Seems a bit hypocritical.

XRLQ has more.

The new girl on the blog

Greetings everyone, it seems that I’m the new girl around here, so I suppose I should introduce myself with a nice little posting here of something I found while reading through CNN.com of all places. Yes, it seems that Terrorists have a new weapon. The military’s been experimenting with this kind of thing for years, so is it really a surprise that the possibility would arise from terrorists as well? When I hear more about it, those reading here will be the first to know… but incidentally, while it seems the FBI is worried about it, the AirForce isn’t. Air traffic control operators and pilots working for the military have been briefed that attacks of this kind are “unlikely due to the cost involved in lasers with enough power and focusing capability to cause more than temporary blindness that would pass before a crash would be probable” in an unclassified memorandum almost two weeks ago.

Anyway, its something new to think about.

December 09, 2004

Respect

Walk

cowboy from hell

Dimebag Darrell Abbot 1966 – 2004

Update: News item here.

And Michelle has more.

Update 2: Rolling Stone reports:

The shooter — identified as Nathan Gale, 25, of Marysville, Ohio — dressed in a hooded sweatshirt and hockey jersey, jumped onstage at about 10 p.m., just as Damageplan were beginning their first song. After making a statement about the breakup of Pantera, he shot Abbott in the chest several times at close range and then turned his gun on the crowd of hundreds.

I was upset over the break up but that is insane.

Also, the gunman had a hostage when the officer shot him:

Investigators in Columbus, Ohio, say the gunman, identified as Nathan Gale, had a hostage in a headlock when a police officer shot Gale. Police won’t identify the hostage.

Officer James Niggemeyer was patrolling nearby and was in the club less then a minute before he shot Gale, allowing the hostage to escape. Investigators say the officer’s actions saved other lives.

Heh!

Patterico shoots and scores.

Judge Approves Sniper Settlement

I wish Bushmaster hadn’t settled but they did. A judge approved the settlement:

The dealer and manufacturer of the rifle used by the Washington-area snipers will pay $2.5 million to the families of six victims and to two surviving victims under a settlement approved Friday by a Washington state judge.

The settlement, reached in September, marked the first time a gun manufacturer paid damages for negligence that led to violence, said David Beninger, one of the attorneys representing the families.

I hope it’s the last. However, since they’ve set a precedent, I doubt it will be.

Good news

The NSSF reports accidental firearm fatalities are at an all time low:

A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

Congressmonkies: Voting the unknown

I chided the congress for voting to approve a bill that there is no way in Hell it could have read. Gunner draws this comparison:

3000–pages 9/11 bill just passed
1472—pages War and peace by Leo Tolstoy
1075—pages Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
701—–pages Black’s Law Dictionary (Pocket), 2nd Edition
1440—pages doomsday Book: A Complete Translation(census of Norman England 1000AD#)

And this is bad how?

Tom quoting a piece on possible chief justice Thomas:

Although he frequently is seen as an identical vote with Justice Antonin Scalia, in fact, Thomas has gone far further in his positions than any justice, including Scalia. In a recent, little-noticed biography of Thomas by Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Ken Foskett, Scalia provides a remarkable assessment of his colleague. Thomas, Scalia says, “does not believe in stare decisis (the doctrine that courts must adhere to precedents set by previous court rulings”, period. [sic] If a Constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right. I wouldn’t do that.

Emphasis added. Assuming he’s on the right (meaning correct side), I don’t see how that is bad. There are thousands and thousands of pages of bad case law. In fact, a lot of it is total bullshit. A clean slate gets the nod from me.

Gun shows in Kali

Looks like Contra Costa is trying to prohibit gun shows at the fairgrounds that they don’t own.

PSN or Pork

Deb has a comparison of the recently unfunded Project Safe Neighborhoods.

More on Chai Vang

Lady Liberty has a run down.

Healing the divide

A new blog called Left2Right seeks to reach out to us pickup-driving, gun-toting, red state residents of Jesusland. One post by Gerald Dworkin attempts to find mutual ground, a noble endeavor. One such item raised was:

Both parties to the abortion debate can agree that it would be preferable if there were fewer abortions

I don’t think you’d get any disagreement from either side on that one. I, who am left on a number of issues and right on others (left on that issue), tend to agree but I think the following statement proves that the left fails to understand or refuses to understand some issues:

Both those who advocate gun-control and those who oppose it can agree that trigger-locks and other safety devices are desirable.

I am as pro-gun as they get and I don’t think trigger-locks and other safety devices are desirable. If a trigger lock is placed on a handgun that’s primary use is home defense, you may as well have a paperweight or a rock. My personal criteria for a home defense handgun is that it is one that a police officer would trust with his life and they generally don’t carry weapons with trigger locks, low capacity magazines, or other safety devices.

I also view those who would mandate the use of trigger-locks as attempting to exert an unnecessary control over a constitutionally enumerated right to arms. I also view it as an attempt to make guns less beneficial for defense purposes, therefore making them less appealing.

I tend to doubt Mr. Dworkin has had any serious discussion about this issue with anyone who is pro-gun. I think for this Left2Right thing to work, they need to make a serious attempt at understanding us Jesuslanders.

The real mutual ground is that both sides agree that gun death and gun violence need to be reduced. They disagree on how to achieve that goal.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives