Tag Archives: firearms

September 16, 2013 · 6:57 pm

Presenting Another Dozen Sacrificial Lambs to the Altar of Wishful Thinking


The Solution to the Gun-Free Zone killing fields — trained, licensed, responsible concealed carry licensees

Today, once again, yet another dozen people were unnecessarily and callously sacrificed upon the gun-control altar known as the “Gun-Free Zone.”  This latest mass shooting was the second in four years at a military installation — this time the Washington, D.C., Naval Yard.  The previous military mass shooting occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, just shy of four full years ago.  The Fort Hood toll was thirteen dead, another thirty wounded; and it occurred, ironically enough, at an installation filled with people who were trained in small arms, yet were precluded by regulation from carrying them because they were in a “Gun-Free Zone” that wasn’t quite gun-free enough.

Since 1950, every single mass shooting resulting in four or more deaths save just one example has occurred in a supposedly “Gun-Free Zone.”  You would have to be an absolute loon to believe that correlation is mere happenstance.  And while the gun-control crowd would like nothing more than to distract attention from this failed Gun-Free Zone social experiment by making a circus of the tragic Zimmerman case, I would point out that they sole reason George Zimmerman received so much attention was not because licensed, responsible, concealed licensees are a substantive danger to the public.  Rather, the focus on Mr. Zimmerman stemmed from the fact that such reckless behavior by a concealed carry licensee is so rare as to be newsworthy when it does occur.

Despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence accumulated over the past 63 years, gun-control advocates continue to insist upon implementation of yet more failed “Gun-Free Zone” killing fields.  Considering that weapons in the possession of private citizens successfully deter almost one-million crimes a year — usually without a shot being fired with the perpetrator retreating more often than not at the mere sudden brandishing of a defensive weapon — it is time for gun-control advocates to admit that their social experiment has failed, failed miserably, and is doomed to fail repeatedly in the future.

Example:  There were within twenty-minute’s drive of James Eagan Holmes‘ home a total of seven theaters from which to choose for his massacre in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.  The one upon which Mr. Holmes eventually settled was not the closest.  Rather, it was the only one out of the seven that had posted on the entrance door a sign designating that theater a “Gun-Free Zone.”  Again, you would have to be an absolute loon to believe that was coincidental.  It most assuredly was not.

If gun-control advocates insist upon continuing with not-so-gun-free “Gun-Free Zones,” then it is time to hold them personally accountable for the inevitable results.  A theater owner who so designates his premises, and who then fails to protect his patrons with armed guards, should be held civilly liable for the resulting carnage.  A governmental entity — whether it be local, state, or federal — should be compelled to compensate victims and relatives of victims when they are wounded, maimed, or killed by what we now know to be a failed social experiment based more upon wishful thinking rather than empirical evidence of effectiveness.  Under no circumstance should that governmental entity be allowed to proclaim sovereign immunity for creating an environment where law abiding citizens are denied the inalienable right of self-defense.

It’s way past time to start holding responsible the people who make such mass killings possible.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms, Opinion Piece

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 4, 2013 · 7:23 pm

A Non-Scheduled Blog Post — Here We Go Again


Deadly Avenger . . . Dodge Avenger, that is

Today I bring to you a special blog post because of some late breaking news.

In case you hadn’t noticed lately, I’ve sort of made it my mission in life to bring to you stories of people using vehicles to wound, maim, and even kill large numbers of innocent people.

Remember these?

When Will We Rein in these Deliverers of Death?

Hate to Say, “I Told You So,” But . . .

Why am I devoting time to this nonsense, you may ask?  To expose the hypocrisy of the gun control crowd and their selective outrage on public access to potentially lethal consumer goods — make that access to some goods, and not others . . . yet.

On the one hand you have outrage being expressed at public access to firearms in general, and handguns and so-called “assault rifles” (a contrived term without a legitimate definition) in particular.  On the other hand you have vehicles ranging from the lethal sedan to the awesomely devastating assault SUV.  No outrage there.  No calls to limit public access to these weapons even though they kill far more each year.   No public outcry or legislative hearings on people who use these rolling death machines to intentionally inflict death and destruction on a grand scale.

Yet it’s happened once again:  Hit-and-run driver purposely accelerates onto Venice Beach boardwalk.  This time the toll was eleven wounded — one critically and two seriously.  One other person was killed, a 32-year-old newlywed woman on honeymoon from her native Italy.  Her husband had the sad task of identifying her body.

In case you’re keeping tabs on such things, that’s at least the second time this year.  That previous terrorist attack used an assault Cadillac and resulted in up to sixty casualties.

You’ll note that these two mass attacks occurred less than three months apart using a device that in recent years is responsible for over 32,000 deaths (and untold wounded and maimed) annually.

Don’t think gun control affects you because you don’t own one?  Think it’s a good idea because they scare you?  Then pay attention to what this debate is really all about.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating (and I’m sure I’ll repeat it again after the next act of vehicular terrorism or mass death):

You may not own a firearm.  You may have no desire to do so.  You may even fear and loathe them.  But remember this:  Whenever an elected official tells you — a law abiding citizen with a clean record of responsibility — that you cannot be trusted with something and that they’re limiting your access for your own good, don’t expect them to stop short at just those items with which you personally disagree or don’t own.  They won’t.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proven that point quite conclusively (“Okay, scum — this is the NYPD.  Slowly put down that Big Gulp and very carefully back away.  Let us see your hands at all times, dirt bag.”)

These same arguments can also can be applied to your access to the lowly motorized vehicle.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms

Tagged as , , ,

May 22, 2013 · 5:35 am

Hate to Say, “I Told You So,” But . . .


Actually, I do enjoy saying it.

Remember this little satirical gem?  Link:  When Will We Rein in these Deliverers of Death?

Well, it’s happened again.  This time an incredible sixty people were wounded, some critically.  Three had to be helicop0tered out of the carnage, and another dozen or so were transported to hospitals by ambulance.  Here’s the gory story in all its glory:  Up to 60 Injured After Car Drives into Va. Parade

Seeing as how we’re frequently told by some of our elected nannies . . . er, officials . . . that we can’t be trusted with these:

Or especially one of these:

Then by the same logic, and taking into consideration the vastly higher injury and death rate associated with automobiles, I’m sure it’s only a matter of days before Senator Dianne Feinstein and others take action to outlaw these from falling into the wrong hands (meaning your hands):

A Vehicle of DEATH

This is not hyperbole, my friends.  The argument for depriving you of one also justifies depriving you of the other, or perhaps taking away your access to fast food hamburgers and fried chicken, or denying to you large soda drinks at the theater, or stripping you of that swimming pool in your backyard.

You may not own a firearm.  You may have no desire to do so.  You may even fear and loathe them.  But remember this:  Whenever an elected official tells you — a law abiding citizen with a clean record of responsibility — that you cannot be trusted with something and that they’re limiting your access for your own good, don’t expect them to stop short at just those items with which you personally disagree or don’t own.  They won’t.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proven that point quite conclusively (“Okay, scum — this is the NYPD.  Slowly put down that Big Gulp and very carefully back away.  Let us see your hands at all times, dirt bag.”)

Indeed, as a rule of thumb, you should not trust with your vote any elected official who expresses a distrust in you.

By the way, the so-called “assault rifle” pictured above is a 9mm Beretta Cx4 Storm.  It can also be purchased chambered for the .40 S&W and .45 ACP, which like the 9mm are pistol rounds that are less damaging to living tissue than the .223 round commonly used in more traditional semiautomatic rifles, including so-called “assault” weapons.  That Cx4 is on Senator Feinstein’s list of proposed banned weapons.

Now take a look at the following two rifles:

.223 Caliber Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle

.223 Caliber Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle

Both are functionally the same.  Both employ the exact same firing and chambering mechanisms.  Both use the same caliber round.  Both fire at the same rate — one bullet each time the trigger is squeezed (the definition of “semiautomatic” as opposed to “automatic,” which can fire multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger).  Both will accept so-called “high-capacity” magazines.  One is on the proposed banned list, the other is not.  Now, quick, what’s the difference that justifies that?

Answer:  The second rifle magically transformed itself into an “assault weapon” when Ruger added that recoil compensator on the firing end of the barrel.  That’s it.  No other modifications whatsoever.  In other words, the Mini-14 Tactical is on the banned list because of one thing, and one thing only — it looks scarier than the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle pictured above it.

And that Cx4 that fires the much more modest 9mm pistol round?  Why was it singled out for banishment, you ask?  Has absolutely nothing to do with function, capability, or destructive potential.  Once again this rifle finds itself on the list because it looks scary — it has a pistol grip and comes with multiple Picatinny rails that can be used to attach to the carbine anything from an optical sight or tactical flashlight to a laser for better target acquisition (which I would think is a good thing — who wants someone using a rifle to accidentally shoot something or someone at which they’re not aiming?)

This is but one reason why Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, and others are simply not taken seriously by those who know, understand, and use firearms.  Their demonstrable ignorance on the subject would fill a book.  Indeed, Mayor Bloomberg was just a few months ago positively humiliated on ABC’s Nightline when Cynthia McFadden had to stop the interview to correct him on his insistence that semiautomatics fire multiple rounds for as long as the trigger was pulled.

Remember this level of ignorance the next time you listen to the gun control debate.  Then, the next time you’re at the airport removing your shoes, belt, and then entering a scanner for a virtual strip search, I want you to consider this:  When did you become the threat to national security while Congress’ laws allow real terrorists unfettered access to the our nation under the guise of “asylum,” are then given taxpayer funded assistance, and then turned loose unsupervised so that they may plant bombs at marathons?  And these same elected officials want to then disarm you because you’re the threat?

Really?

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms, Opinion Piece

Tagged as , , ,