-Yuri
Monday, March 5, 2007
Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America
If you haven't read this book, I recommend that you do. Gary Kleck started out trying to prove that gun ownership in America was a bad thing, but what he found when he looked at the statistics told him a completely different story. Below is a graphic from his book which shows the rate of injury to the victim of violent crimes depending on how and what weapon they resisted with. Look at the far right graph... I know this is from 1993, but I find it hard to believe that the statistics have changed all that much since then.
-Yuri
-Yuri
Friday, March 2, 2007
Hunting With an AR15
Sporting AR's
Stoner's brilliant battle design is following tradition by heading into the woods.
By Dick Metcalf
("The following article was prepared for press prior to the current controversy concerning AR rifles used in hunting, and will appear in the May/June issue of Petersen's Hunting.")
"Virtually every type of centerfire sporting rifle in existence started off as a military weapon. The classic lever-action deer gun, long the most popular type of hunting rifle in America, began as the Henry Rifle of the Civil War era, designed to bring rapid fire against the enemy. The lever-action was succeeded in universal popularity by the bolt-action--the standard hunting rifle of today--which we owe to Paul Mauser's classic battle-rifle design."
Click the title to go read the whole article now.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
England's Gun Ban Proponent Admits He Was Wrong
From Scotland's Sunday Herald. Be sure and read the comments below the article. I'm copying it here verbatim in case it disappears from the web:
Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell
ALMOST 11 years now. Kids grow up, life changes, leaves rot on the branch, and all memories decay. Stuff happens. Almost 11 years ago, on the morning after, I told myself that I had sworn off the vampire habit. You know the sort of thing. Something vast and terrible and inexplicable happens. The journalist dusts down his purple prose and sets out, consciously and deliberately, to feel everyone's pain. Inexcusable, really.
For example: they gave me a prize for Dunblane. To this day, I have never understood why I am the only person I know who finds the fact unsettling. WH Auden, born a century ago last week, said famously that poetry makes nothing happen. He should have tried journalism.
Facts: In mid-March of 1996 Thomas Hamilton, 43, warped, morally crippled, dead in his soul, certainly disgusting, the suicide-in-waiting who should have done us all a favour in the privacy of his own nightmare, went into the precincts of Dunblane primary, and into the gym class, with all his precious sex-toy handguns.
He killed 16 infants, then their teacher, then himself. He accomplished all this with four weapons, in three short minutes. Lots of official things - never adequately explained, for my money - had gone wrong before the event. Somehow that ceased to be the point. Half the world was staggered, but Scotland went into a state of near-clinical shock. The human ability even to begin to pretend to comprehend was defeated.
All over the country, people did irrational things, knowing them to be irrational. They turned up at schools, 100 miles from the scene, just to convince themselves that their own infants were safe. They called home from work, or called people at work, simply to prove that sanity still prevailed. Many could not face the idea of the working day. Strangers in the street, caught unawares by the news, were in tears. If you happen to be too young to remember, trust this: I'm not making it up.
Explanation and analysis, journalism's default responses, were worse than pointless. Those rituals, too, seemed insulting. Joining the world's media on the streets of Dunblane to ask people "how they felt" was worse than ghoulish: I refused that request. To their credit, nobody pressed the point. There was still the usual column to be written, however.
In fact, over the days and weeks that followed, there was more than one. I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.
There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?
Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.
The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.
That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?
Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.
I'm still not convinced, or not entirely. A rueful young man in Los Angeles told me once that his city boasted more cars than people, and more guns than cars. "Current population?" he added. "Eleven million, give or take." To him, the notion of a country patrolled by unarmed police officers was a kind of fantastic dream. To him, equally, the fact that nice kids could lay hands on the family pistol - bought for "self-defence" - and die while simply messing around in the back yard was not an example to be envied, or copied.
"You know what guns do?" he asked. "They go off. You know what guns are for? To kill. That's their purpose. Only the rhetoric is harmless."
Back then, I believed every word. America had, and has, too many of the instruments that Thomas Hamilton found so alluring. Yet almost 11 years on, what do I read, and what do I say?
I read of three London teenagers murdered in the space of 11 days. I read of firearms "incidents" spreading like an epidemic across our cities. I read of Tony Blair holding a Downing Street summit on a crisis that seems - call me naive - a greater threat to many communities than any terrorism.
What I say then becomes obvious: my idea didn't work. In fact, I begin to thread certain fears together, like links in a chain. Here's one: if even London teenagers can provide themselves with the means to kill 15-year-old Billy Cox in his bedroom, guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly.
That's a nightmare for another day, however. We can worry about what might happen after we think of what is actually happening.
David Cameron's Tories argue the issue is societal, a problem of parenting and family breakdown. John Reid, home secretary, speaks of people "working together" for a gun-free world while he hints at new laws. Menzies Campbell, of the Liberals, says we need more and more effective policing.
Each of these opinions may have some value. I'd like to think so. Yet why do they sound like the words of men who have only the faintest idea of what life might be like in Harlesden or Moss Side? It is entirely proper to talk of youths who have become detached from society. You may, however, need to qualify the statement with a question: who is detached from whom?
A weapons fetish escalates for a fairly obvious reason. Many things may have changed since my working-class youth, but I am certain that one piece of logic persists. If he is armed, you had better be armed too. Knives become swords, swords become pistols. Status, respect and "security" follow. If you live. Having a father in the household, or access to a youth club, or hopes of a decent education can seem minor, by comparison, on a dark Saturday night.
Saying so solves nothing, obviously. Perhaps journalists, far less politicians, should make that confession now and then. We could all demand a better world - preferably by tomorrow lunchtime - but always bear our fallibility in mind. It goes back to the question I refused to attempt almost 11 years ago. If I could not explain Thomas Hamilton any more than I can explain the killers of Billy Cox, perhaps I have nothing useful to say about anyone's desire to kill.
I can guess, for all that, that there is something unreasonable, even bizarre, about declaring a youth crisis if teenagers are simply as we have made them. It's Tony Blair's fault, if you like. It's my doing, if you prefer. It's schools, or a lack of discipline, or insufficient policing, or new sets of laws, or just society.
If that last word still means anything, however, then we are all, in fact, culpable. Who turned Thomas Hamilton into a beast? God isn't talking. That leaves the rest of us. I cling, nevertheless, to one near-instinctive conclusion from 11 years ago. Guns breed guns. When they enter a society they multiply like a pestilence.
Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?
Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell
ALMOST 11 years now. Kids grow up, life changes, leaves rot on the branch, and all memories decay. Stuff happens. Almost 11 years ago, on the morning after, I told myself that I had sworn off the vampire habit. You know the sort of thing. Something vast and terrible and inexplicable happens. The journalist dusts down his purple prose and sets out, consciously and deliberately, to feel everyone's pain. Inexcusable, really.
For example: they gave me a prize for Dunblane. To this day, I have never understood why I am the only person I know who finds the fact unsettling. WH Auden, born a century ago last week, said famously that poetry makes nothing happen. He should have tried journalism.
Facts: In mid-March of 1996 Thomas Hamilton, 43, warped, morally crippled, dead in his soul, certainly disgusting, the suicide-in-waiting who should have done us all a favour in the privacy of his own nightmare, went into the precincts of Dunblane primary, and into the gym class, with all his precious sex-toy handguns.
He killed 16 infants, then their teacher, then himself. He accomplished all this with four weapons, in three short minutes. Lots of official things - never adequately explained, for my money - had gone wrong before the event. Somehow that ceased to be the point. Half the world was staggered, but Scotland went into a state of near-clinical shock. The human ability even to begin to pretend to comprehend was defeated.
All over the country, people did irrational things, knowing them to be irrational. They turned up at schools, 100 miles from the scene, just to convince themselves that their own infants were safe. They called home from work, or called people at work, simply to prove that sanity still prevailed. Many could not face the idea of the working day. Strangers in the street, caught unawares by the news, were in tears. If you happen to be too young to remember, trust this: I'm not making it up.
Explanation and analysis, journalism's default responses, were worse than pointless. Those rituals, too, seemed insulting. Joining the world's media on the streets of Dunblane to ask people "how they felt" was worse than ghoulish: I refused that request. To their credit, nobody pressed the point. There was still the usual column to be written, however.
In fact, over the days and weeks that followed, there was more than one. I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.
There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?
Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.
The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.
That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?
Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.
I'm still not convinced, or not entirely. A rueful young man in Los Angeles told me once that his city boasted more cars than people, and more guns than cars. "Current population?" he added. "Eleven million, give or take." To him, the notion of a country patrolled by unarmed police officers was a kind of fantastic dream. To him, equally, the fact that nice kids could lay hands on the family pistol - bought for "self-defence" - and die while simply messing around in the back yard was not an example to be envied, or copied.
"You know what guns do?" he asked. "They go off. You know what guns are for? To kill. That's their purpose. Only the rhetoric is harmless."
Back then, I believed every word. America had, and has, too many of the instruments that Thomas Hamilton found so alluring. Yet almost 11 years on, what do I read, and what do I say?
I read of three London teenagers murdered in the space of 11 days. I read of firearms "incidents" spreading like an epidemic across our cities. I read of Tony Blair holding a Downing Street summit on a crisis that seems - call me naive - a greater threat to many communities than any terrorism.
What I say then becomes obvious: my idea didn't work. In fact, I begin to thread certain fears together, like links in a chain. Here's one: if even London teenagers can provide themselves with the means to kill 15-year-old Billy Cox in his bedroom, guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly.
That's a nightmare for another day, however. We can worry about what might happen after we think of what is actually happening.
David Cameron's Tories argue the issue is societal, a problem of parenting and family breakdown. John Reid, home secretary, speaks of people "working together" for a gun-free world while he hints at new laws. Menzies Campbell, of the Liberals, says we need more and more effective policing.
Each of these opinions may have some value. I'd like to think so. Yet why do they sound like the words of men who have only the faintest idea of what life might be like in Harlesden or Moss Side? It is entirely proper to talk of youths who have become detached from society. You may, however, need to qualify the statement with a question: who is detached from whom?
A weapons fetish escalates for a fairly obvious reason. Many things may have changed since my working-class youth, but I am certain that one piece of logic persists. If he is armed, you had better be armed too. Knives become swords, swords become pistols. Status, respect and "security" follow. If you live. Having a father in the household, or access to a youth club, or hopes of a decent education can seem minor, by comparison, on a dark Saturday night.
Saying so solves nothing, obviously. Perhaps journalists, far less politicians, should make that confession now and then. We could all demand a better world - preferably by tomorrow lunchtime - but always bear our fallibility in mind. It goes back to the question I refused to attempt almost 11 years ago. If I could not explain Thomas Hamilton any more than I can explain the killers of Billy Cox, perhaps I have nothing useful to say about anyone's desire to kill.
I can guess, for all that, that there is something unreasonable, even bizarre, about declaring a youth crisis if teenagers are simply as we have made them. It's Tony Blair's fault, if you like. It's my doing, if you prefer. It's schools, or a lack of discipline, or insufficient policing, or new sets of laws, or just society.
If that last word still means anything, however, then we are all, in fact, culpable. Who turned Thomas Hamilton into a beast? God isn't talking. That leaves the rest of us. I cling, nevertheless, to one near-instinctive conclusion from 11 years ago. Guns breed guns. When they enter a society they multiply like a pestilence.
Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
What Rebecca Peters and the IANSA really want
It is quite clear from the following video excerpts, from a debate between Rebecca Peters of the IANSA and Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, what the ultimate goal of the gun control forces really is.
Parts 1 - 4:
-Yuri
Parts 1 - 4:
-Yuri
Very Positive News
Today, good news! New statistics from the National Safety Council shows that accidents with firearms remain at record lows. Even more significantly, accidents involving youths continue to decline - significantly.The trend is especially positive as the numbers of firearms owners climbs, giving credibility to the idea that training new gun owners helps assure their safety as they progress in shooting.
The 2007 NSF's "Safety Facts" report shows a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearms-related fatalities in the period from 1995 through 2005. It also shows gun accidents involving children age fourteen and under declined sixty nine percent from 1995 through 2003.
The council's most recent stats show 109,277 U.S. residents dying in accidents of all types in 2005. Less than 1 percent involved firearms. As you might imagine, motor vehicles were the highest fatality rate, with poisoning and falls joining the auto to account for seventy five percent of all accidental deaths.
These statistics are also verified by findings of the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC findings show that all four regions of the United States have enjoyed significant declines in the numbers of firearms-related fatalities.
There were 730 accidental firearms fatalities in 2005; forty percent fewer than the 1,225 deaths in 1995. And the numbers of firearms related fatalities continue to show the largest percentage decrease of all measured types of accident fatalities.
Source The Shooting Wire
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Civilian Self Defense - Episode 1
Monday, February 26, 2007
Newberry County, South Carolina
From Columbia’s WLTX.com of February 26, 2007
Prosecutors: Woman Killed Her Husband in Self-Defense
Prosecutors have decided that a fatal domestic shooting in Newberry County last month was done in self-defense.
Eighth Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace determined that the female victim in the case, 59-year-old Cynthia Franklin, took appropriate actions to save her life, and that no charges will be filed in the case.
Deputies say Cynthia Franklin shot to death her husband, 63-year-old Dennis Franklin, back on January 26. Officers say the two got into a domestic dispute.
Investigators say they found the woman suffering significant wounds to her head, face, and upper body. They say there were obvious signs of a violent struggle in the home and that Cynthia was struck multiple times with a large stick.
Cynthia also told authorities she was trying to get away and made it to the bedroom where the pistol was kept, then shot her husband as he tried to attack her.
"This was a tragic situation," said Sheriff Foster in a written release. "While we certainly agree with the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Franklin, she and her family are left to deal with the devastating effects of this incident."
Friday, February 23, 2007
National City, California
From NBCSanDiego.com of February 23, 2007
Police: Victim Turns Gun On Home-Invasion Robber
A suspected home-invasion robber was shot and wounded by one of his alleged victims according to police in National City.
Officials said three men, wearing masks, forced their way into a home at 2032 E. Seventh Street Thursday night. Four people were inside the home at the time.
The men, armed with shotguns and other weapons, ordered the residents to the floor, according to police.
Officials said one of the residents managed to wrestle the shotgun away from one of the robbers. A struggle followed and the gun fired, hitting a wall.
Police said a second resident picked up the shotgun and fired two rounds at the robbers, striking one of the men, identified as Marc Wideman, 19, of Spring Valley.
All three robbers fled the scene. Wideman was later found by police at a local hospital. He was taken into custody. Police said his wounds are not life-threatening.
Police are still looking for the two other men in this case.
There are many more that I didn't post here. If you would like to read more about citizens using guns to protect themselves, go to Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog. Many thanks to them for allowing me to post some examples from their web site.
Newberry County, South Carolina
From Columbia’s WLTX.com of February 26, 2007
Prosecutors: Woman Killed Her Husband in Self-Defense
Prosecutors have decided that a fatal domestic shooting in Newberry County last month was done in self-defense.
Eighth Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace determined that the female victim in the case, 59-year-old Cynthia Franklin, took appropriate actions to save her life, and that no charges will be filed in the case.
Deputies say Cynthia Franklin shot to death her husband, 63-year-old Dennis Franklin, back on January 26. Officers say the two got into a domestic dispute.
Investigators say they found the woman suffering significant wounds to her head, face, and upper body. They say there were obvious signs of a violent struggle in the home and that Cynthia was struck multiple times with a large stick.
Cynthia also told authorities she was trying to get away and made it to the bedroom where the pistol was kept, then shot her husband as he tried to attack her.
"This was a tragic situation," said Sheriff Foster in a written release. "While we certainly agree with the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Franklin, she and her family are left to deal with the devastating effects of this incident."
***
Friday, February 23, 2007
National City, California
From NBCSanDiego.com of February 23, 2007
Police: Victim Turns Gun On Home-Invasion Robber
A suspected home-invasion robber was shot and wounded by one of his alleged victims according to police in National City.
Officials said three men, wearing masks, forced their way into a home at 2032 E. Seventh Street Thursday night. Four people were inside the home at the time.
The men, armed with shotguns and other weapons, ordered the residents to the floor, according to police.
Officials said one of the residents managed to wrestle the shotgun away from one of the robbers. A struggle followed and the gun fired, hitting a wall.
Police said a second resident picked up the shotgun and fired two rounds at the robbers, striking one of the men, identified as Marc Wideman, 19, of Spring Valley.
All three robbers fled the scene. Wideman was later found by police at a local hospital. He was taken into custody. Police said his wounds are not life-threatening.
Police are still looking for the two other men in this case.
***
There are many more that I didn't post here. If you would like to read more about citizens using guns to protect themselves, go to Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog. Many thanks to them for allowing me to post some examples from their web site.
The Truth about 'Assault Weapons'
...from the author:
"This video got me suspended for a week! My Chief couldn't stand the truth.
Don't let the skinny guy with color in his hair fool you. It's me! This video was made in 1989 and intended for viewing by legislators during the controversy caused by the "assault weapon" rhetoric by anti-gun types.
It struck a popular chord, though, and was distributed far and wide by the NRA. I was under orders from my Chief, Joe McNamara, to state a disclaimer whenever making a public statement, on or off duty. I neglected to do that at the beginning of this film, as I thought it was for legislator's eyes only. And Joe was lying in wait. He got me!
I feel very fortunate for the opportunity to participate in this video project, and hope you enjoy it as much as I did making it.
Leroy"
The only thing I would add is that FA weapons aren't illeagle in most states and just require that you get approval of the BATFE and pay $200. FA weapons are very expensive however since the government decided that no NEW weapons could be imported and owned if they were made after a certain date.
-Yuri
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
