Saturday, May 19, 2018

Santa Fe, Texas: Resource Officer John Barnes!

The reason for "Resource Officers" (eg: "Guards") in schools is to protect the innocents.

It sounds as if there are still "Resource Officers" who know their duty, and they do it.

Absolute accolades to men who are willing to put their lives on the line.  Hope Officer John Barnes gets a great big BONUS with his next paycheck ... but I suspect that knowing he saved dozens of innocent lives will be sufficient reward to such a stalwart man!

Amid the chaos in Santa Fe, teachers' yells sent students scrambling for safety:
 One of the wounded in Friday’s shooting was Santa Fe school district police officer John Barnes, who was in critical but stable condition late Saturday, officials said. The police chief said two officers "engaged him right away," referring to the suspected shooter. "Our officers went in there and did what they could," Santa Fe ISD Police Chief Walter Braun said. For four hours Saturday, school buses with a police escort shuttled students and staff from the junior high school to the high school to retrieve their belongings.

Step #1: "Have A Plan"

if someone wants to get into a school to create havoc, they can do it.”

During the last part of my tour in Viet Nam, I was "in the Rear Echelons" (assigned to a base camp) where we paid regular visits to orphanages and Childrens' Hospitals.  I met kids as young as 7 or 8 years old who had been "injured".  Land mines (ours, theirs, whatever) took a terrible toll on children who would pick up a toy, only to have it blow up on them.  I met children missing arms, legs ... and parents.

It didn't matter whether the land mine which had taken their limbs were set by our side or the other side ... usually, the children of Viet Nam were delighted to see us because we brought them  food, fruits, candies and other treats.  It was hard to accept that we were sent on these visitation to "win the hearts and minds" of children who were missing body parts,  and who had terrible battle scars much worse than our friends in the company had suffered from similar war wounds

A seven year old girl with burn scars over her chest from Napalm, but still smiled at us, is enough to make a grown man cry.  And we did ... but not until we left their "safe" compoind.

I've been around the world and I've Seen The Elephant, but after all these years I've not seen worse than this.

I was lucky; I never saw children die. And I hope I never will.

Now ... today ... we have American children suffering the same kind of wounds.

But we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

Santa Fe school had a shooting plan, armed officers, and practice. And still 10 people died. – The Denver Post:
They thought they were a hardened target, part of what’s expected today of the American public high school in an age when school shootings occur with alarming frequency. And so a death toll of 10 was a tragic sign of failure and needing to do more, but also a sign, to some, that it could have been much worse. “My first indication is that our policies and procedures worked,” J.R. “Rusty” Norman, president of the school district’s board of trustees, said Saturday, standing exhausted at his front door. “Having said that, the way things are, if someone wants to get into a school to create havoc, they can do it. 

Is This The New "American Angst"?

Have we become a colony of lab-rats who are so insular that we begin to feed upon our own?

Did we sink so far that we have evolved a National Paranoia which inevitably requires us to self-destruct?

I know that any society has its portion of insane people who are so far out of sync with 'normality' that they are not bothered by enjoy wreaking havoc on their neighbors.  Call them Schizophrenic, call them paranoidal, call them crazy ... they exist in any societal group sufficiently large to support  non-productive members.

All I know is that we have an emerging sub-class of people who feel no obligation to support the well-being of Society,  and they are running wild in America.    Their politics don't matter; whether or not they support the Second Amendment doesn't matter.  They will use any weapon, any societal meme, any trick of rhetoric to undermine American society/values/peace.

They have always been here, but today they are given free reign to use our "Acceptance" to attack the  rest of the rats.

We are the rats, and we are under attack.

What are we going to do about it?

At Last, an "Honest" Gun Grabber!.

For those of you who believe Democrats when they protest that they "... don't want to take your guns away ..."

NRA-ILA | Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After "Resisters":
The headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

The Australian Solution (clipped from the above article):

... the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation. Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails. The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense – which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.
Chilling thoughts, to citizens of a Constitutional Nation
(oh, did I mention that Australian Constitution doesn't include a right to keep and bear arms??)

How Many Locks Are "Enough"?

Oregon's Initiative Petition 44  demands that all firearms must be kept locked, or locked up.   If your firearms are stolen, you are liable for all injuries (etc).

All of my firearms are locked up.  The locks are on the doors and windows of my home.   I never go farther than the corner mailbox without locking up.   Any more stringent lock-up measures would inhibit my ability to defend myself in my home

Yes, some firearms are locked in safes; others remain available (although not in "plain sight").   Ammunition is typically stored out of plain sight, but not locked up.

Now, the new Oregon Firearms Initiative suggests that if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm(s), I'm criminally liable for any harm that criminal causes using my stolen firearm.

Where's the justice when the victim becomes the criminal, and the criminal's subsequent crimes are shared by the victim?

SECTION 2. (1) A person who transfers a firearm must transfer the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock.

Continuing the Bizarre ... a firearms "transferer" can't "transfer" firearm gun without a trigger lock?
How goofy is that?  When you sell a gun, you're not responsible for the actions of the buyer (except that you can't sell a gun to a felon, madman, etc.)   If HE needs a trigger lock, let him buy his own damn trigger lock!

I live alone; I don't need no stinking Trigger Lock!
COULD a minor gain access to a firearm I sell?  (There are no minors in my home; but that doesn't seem to matter.)  Who knows the age of the burglar who breaks into his home during his absence?  There are many flaws in this bill;  there is no allowance for "Reasonable Precautions", because it's purpose is not to provide safety but to intimidate legal firearms owners.

Requiring me to hobble my guns because a minor MIGHT invade my home?   That's madness!

There ought to be a law saying that an intruder is singularly responsible for his own actions.

There use to be; where did it go?

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Michael Voigt

I note the recent passing of Michael Voigt, past president of USPSA.

I knew Mr. Voigt  well enough to say hello, in passing.  I saw him in several Major Matches over the years, but rarely had a speaking acquaintance with him.

Perhaps it sounds petty to mention that he never did me a wrong, but he served USPSA well as a President, and I cannot say as much for some other past presidents.  He was an excellent competitive shooter, and I was incidentally squaded with him at a couple of major matches over the years.

Watching him shoot was like watching a butterfly in field of nectar; he floated from one target to the next, and on stages which caused me problems he set the example.  Everyone who ever squaded with Mr. Voigt  wanted to be Just Like Him ... so we shot too fast, and never minded that we didn't get the A-zone hits as regularly as he did;  he Set The Bar higher than we could ever hope to match.

A Gentleman, he would chat with a lowly C-class shooter as readily as the Grand-Masters with whom he was accustomed to meet in his squad.

The competitive shooting world has diminished a bit with his passing.

There's a problem with Gun Control Movements: they don't work!

Honest people with the best of intent have causee more havoc than the most avaricious warlords.

I’ve spent 18 years fighting for gun control. Here’s how we win

Eighteen years ago I applied for a permit to march on Washington, called it the “Million Mom March,” and scheduled the protest for Mother’s Day 2000. More than 750,000 protestors turned out on the National Mall. Another 250,000 poured into sister marches across the country. This spring, the March for Our Lives surpassed those numbers. It was a promising sign that the gun control movement is finally regaining momentum after failing miserably to keep Americans safe.
Honest, well-intentioned people have worked for decades to eliminate gun-predation on innocent civilians, and their efforts have proved to be ineffective.  (See Below)

Why don't these heart-felt pleas failed to accomplish their goals?

Because the only tools in their box is to either:
(A) take away guns from EVERYONE, or;
(B) conflate honest, law-abiding gun owners with criminals.
(These attitudes are interchangeable; you can't have one without the other.)

These noble goals are not undermined by the criminals in our society, who are their legitimate target: they are defeated by the law-abiding among us.

And "the solution" as you have suggested is doomed to fail, because just saying "NO" has no effect on either the Criminal Class, or the citizens whose (Second Amendment) constitutional rights are zealously defended by citizens who are as honest and caring as you are.

Here are the only two things you can do to get all guns off the streets of America::
(1) Delete the Second Amendment rights for honest citizens to defend themselves, their property, their homes, their families and their country
(2) Initiate a nation-wide program where police will invade every home in America with the goal of searching out, and confiscating, every firearm they can find.
You will have to perform both miracles simultaneously, of course.
                                One is no good without the other.

The abrogation of a constitutional "RIGHT" will be politically unpopular; any federal lawmaker who voted for such a bill would never spend another day in office, after his current turn ran out.  Of course, if it is "the right thing to do", they would obviously sacrifice their political future to bring about the the measure you favor.

And how many Americans are willing to go from door to door, merrily confiscating firearms from Second Amendment advocates?    Will YOU?

Criminals will not give up your guns; nor will honest citizens who expect their government to protect their Constitutional Rights.   Have you even read the Second Amendment?

The World is over-endowed with Unicorns who expect to solve complex issues with simplistic solutions; this is just one of many "Dreamer" solutions which are probably not expected to be enacted. but are only proposed as "talking points".

Here's the talk which your proposition generates:

Are you trying to start another Civil War?  Making felons of law-abiding citizens is a great start.

It may have worked in Australia  (with notable exceptions) but Australia was started as a nation penal colony of convicted felons who were sent there as penalty for violating British Law.

America is a nation which started (and won!) a war with Great Britain because they  (the British) tried to confiscate our firearms .. among other grievances.
You may march for any purpose you wish, and nobody will seriously object.  Because America marched for the greatest cause .. the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

We are ANTIFA because we're against people who aren't ANTIFA

The most interesting thing about ANTIFA Liberals is that they are not only rabidly anti-fascist, but they are able to to explain their political opinions so succinctly.

Usually, they define their political stance as either "Uh......"  or "I don't know".

It don't get more "succinct" than that!

(One gets the vague impression that they are against Conservative Thought, which they consider to be Fascist.  One is tempted to define this offshoot of the Liberal as "extremist"  But I wouldn't say that.   THEY might say that, but when they're asked the question they don't always remember the EXACT verbiage which they are being fed from Liberal websites.   Not that they don't BELIEVE it ... they just haven't done their homework.)

It's interesting to compare ANTIFA with the John Birch Society.

See also a less forgiving view of ANTIFA.

(I love my job!)

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Can an Elite Education allow you to objectively evaluate Gun Violence?

Harvard's "The Crimson" demonstrates that even the most literate of our Young Americans cannot resist the lure of biased reportage when addressing the twin issues of Gun violence and Gun Control.

After recounting the shock of discovering that his Harvard classmates have become victims of gun violence, the author (ANDREW W. AOYAMA Apr 26, 2018) sinks to the same level of reaction as did the CDC decades ago.   He reports only one side of the issue:

Can an Elite Education Protect You from Gun Violence? | Magazine | The Harvard Crimson:
Hemenway cites the Dickey Amendment as a major hurdle in the path towards a realistic conversation about gun violence. The amendment, a 1996 congressional provision, effectively prohibits the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to research gun violence. “The gun lobby didn’t like the results of early research funded by the CDC that found that having a gun in the house increases, not decreases, one’s risk of death,”  Hemenway says, referencing a landmark 1993 study that challenged the narrative often repeated by the National Rifle Association: that gun ownership allowed individuals to better protect their families.
Had Aoyama done his homework ... a concept which is apparently no longer taught at Harvard ... he would have discovered that the CDC had been found to be highly biased in reporting the findings of their research on Gun Violence.

Specifically, he would have learned that the reason  that CONGRESS pulled the reins on CDC reportage was that the federally funded research center reported on gun violence without balancing their reports with information about personal firearms which were used to protect citizens against gun violence.   This information had been casually gathered by CDC, but either not as thoroughly researched or else deliberately not reported.

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Things Liberals Want You To Know About NRA President Lt. Col. Oliver North

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

Fortune Magazine recently published a very demure, quite civilized hit piece on Oliver North ... the new NRA president. Here are the Not-So-Fortunate slams:

1:  Iran-Contra scandal 
2: Iran-Contra scandle (conviction ... later over turned
3: long-standing NRA member (Fortune Mag considers this A Bad Thing?)
4: Ran for Senate a couple of decades ago and lost (1994)5: "His Election Baffled Gun-Control Advocates (!!!!!)
The central issues of North's career is that he negotiated a gun deal with Iran (which was not a political issue during the 1980's) which provided funding for the  anti-communist "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua ... who were battling to keep their country free from Communist Insurgents by using the funds to purchase arms

When charges were made against North, President Reagan interceded on North's behalf, under the defense that North was acting under the orders of his commander in chief.

That is, he (North) was acting as an agent of then-president Ronald Reagan (who was at the top of the American Military hierarchy.

I don't know if Reagan or North were justified in acting under the auspices of The Monroe Doctrine, but that american National Policy had been in place since 1983 and never rescinded. 

 North was NOT disobeying a direct command of his ultimate superior.   He was not "operating" as an independent agent; he was operating as an agent of the President.

Later, when Liberals grilled President Reagan in Iran-Contra hearings, Reagan accepted full responsibility for North's actions.

It is unfair for critics to insinuate that Oliver North is not a patriot, or a good soldier, because he became embroiled in a complicate military/political situation which was not of his making.  It's also unfair and petty of today's Liberals to denigrate the NRA because they have chosen a decorated soldier who has performed his duties to the best of his abilities ... with honor, and without apology.

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

And the fact that North ran for high public office and was defeated?  That' America, Baby! 

5 Things to Know About the NRA's New President Oliver North | Fortune:
The National Rifle Association has named Oliver North, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel known for his role in the Reagan Administration-era Iran-Contra scandal, as its new president. He will replace Pete Brownell, CEO of firearms accessory maker Brownells, leading the pro-gun organization in a few weeks. North has already stepped down from his contributor role at Fox News.

Monday, May 07, 2018

Remington Won't Sell Guns to ... who? Anyone with money? Get Outta Here!

Bank of America's loan to Remington tests its firearms pledge | Reuters:
“It’s perfectly reasonable for them (BOA) to say to any borrower, ‘We’re happy to lend to you if you don’t make military-style assault weapons,’” said Ted Gavin of the Gavin/Solmonese LLC restructuring advisory firm. “The lender has all the power.”

But if the lender is too picky about their customers .. they don't have any customers.
And there are plenty of other customers who really really want to upgrade their  product line with another Major Customer!!!!

(Watch for the "Cave-in" on this perfectly reasonable statement.)

Remington Firearms are perfectly legal.   When the "lender" has sufficiently milked the political  issue, the corporate position will shift just enough to accept perfectly legal firearms as a perfectly legal manufacturer's product.

And Remington Firearms can't stay in business if they don't sell guns.  

What other product do they have?  Popcorn?

Because   $$$,$$$,$$$

And banks don't loan money to companies which don't sell product.

Broad Statements Made to Prove a Political Point

Says "The Grime Report"  (sic)
Gun violence has overtaken motor vehicle accidents as a leading killer of young people in the US—second only to drug overdoses, says the Center for American Progress. 
There's no reason to doubt the statistics (which are only broadly stated), but there is reason to doubt the universal validity of the raw statistics cited by the Center for American Progress ... a liberal ("Progressive") website which is quick to blame the Second Amendment Rights of Americans for the tragic and all-too-pervasive slaughter wrought of American Youths.

The Report (see below) is quick to blame the "ready" availability of firearms for the high murder rates of young people on other young people.

Drill down the statistics, and you will see that the victims AND the victimizers are teen-age males residing in cities with an already too-high crime rate.

It's not the guns ... it's the society that is responsible for these high rates of gun violence.

If they weren't using guns (which are already illegal to possess by teenagers in all 50 states, without severe restrictions), they would be using knives.

(Search the crime rates by firearms in England, where possession of most guns are already either highly restricted, or completely forbidden; kids there are slaughtering each other using knives, and the anti-knife laws are as all-encompassing as are the anti-gun laws in, say, Chicago.)

The problem isn't guns, or knives; it's Society!

Young people who grow up in neighborhoods where opportunities for jobs, training and education are often limited because of the already prevalent reliance upon Cops rather that Jobs to keep the peace ... they don't have money, they can't support their families (parents without jobs; crime is too often the best way to support your family) ... and so they turn to crime.

These People who point the finger at "guns" as the source of societal ills, are using these teenagers as decoys.  The community is so busy fighting "crime" that they have neither the resources nor the impetus to recognize and address the economic causes of teen-age gun crimes.

THEY find it easier to look good on the Six o'clock News, making palatable quotes, than to make the really tough decisions about jobs opportunities, psychological support, ans spending more money on job opportunities than on buying Assault Vehicles.

Guns Kill More Young People Than Road Accidents: Study | The Crime ReportThe Crime Report:

See Original Quote below The Fold

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Nurses Call for CONSTITUTIONAL Ban On Gunsl

Simplistic, emotional calls for a universal BAN ON FIREARMS are not a solution to the "Gun Violence" problem.

A (group?  consortium?) of professional nurses have made such a call, and while I understand and appreciate their angst, I do not agree that this Draconian measure will resolve the gun violence problem with which they are so personally all to familiar.

Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients | TheHill:
We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence. Organizations such as The American Academy of Nursing, The American Nurse Association, The American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, have rightly called for a ban on firearms. Moving forward these conversations need to be rooted in the context of the Constitution. Unless we can frame our argument in the context of the Constitution, then we are fighting a battle that is already lost. So, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work fighting for the right to life for our patients by amending the constitution.
I hope that readers understand that if a ban on firearms should be (unconstitutionally) imposed on Americans, the consequence would be that only police officers and military would be allowed to carry arms.  So much for the rights of The People to protect self, home and family.   We're looking at madness here, where The People have no rights at all when their right to support the Constitution no longer exists.  Welcome to Venezuela (the least democratic state in South America)!

In 1994, America imposed similar extreme measures.    It was an imposition on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, but Congress agreed to ... "give it a shot" so to speak.
 No, it was not a universal ban on all firearms, but it came very close.  After the ten-year "experiment" concluded, it was determined that limiting access to firearms played no significant difference in the murder rate in America.

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

Would a TOTAL BAN ON ALL GUNS be more effective?

There are at least THREE ... and probably more ... problems involved on a "TOTAL BAN":

The first problem is that there are more firearms than Americans in America!

Very few firearms (relative to the total number) are "Registered", because American gun owners are generally disinclined to register their guns regardless of what the local laws may require.   These laws may have made felons of otherwise extremely law-abiding American .. who resent incursions on their civil rights.  They *(we)* believe that our Constitution does not "allow" us to be armed; it only acknowledges a "God Given Right" to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

We do NOT believe that our civil rights are "given", or even "guaranteed" by the Constitution.
The Constitution merely "acknowledges" our God-give rights, and those rights may not be ignored, abrogated, mitigated  amended or ignored by Politicians.  Our rights cannot, should not, and WILL NOT be undermined by pettifoggers.

The Second problem is that ... when you make felons of armed Americans ... somebody has to go take those guns away from them.

Nobody expects nurses to go door-to-door citing Nancy Pelosi: "Mister and Mrs America, TurnThem All In!".

(She couldn't get the votes, and neither shall you.)

You cannot confiscate all of the guns in America,.  You can't take them all away ... no matter how many U.S. Marshalls are willing to risk their lives many times a day in an attempt to implement your unilateral opinion. 

 Oh, and by the way?  Many American Law Officers support the Second Amendment.

Even those who would support this proposition realize that confiscation would be a life-threatening project.  Not all are willing to make that effort.

The implementation of this plan would be an exercise of "Excessive Force" ... also not a favorite activity of most law-abiding law officers who hope to go home to their families at the end of the day.

And the third problem is that the Majority of Americans are  NOT eager to tamper with the Constitution of the United States.

Even those who find the Constitution "inconvenient" understand that it requires a clear majority of the states to amend the Constitution, even to make a relatively "minor" change of the text ... let alone delete an entire Amendment!

What does it take to amend the Constitution?
The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
Unfortunately, a "Constitutional Convention" is rarely a popular action, not the least because if you evoke a Convention, then the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is subjected to being re-evaluated.  It may occur that portions of the constitution with which you DO agree may be discussed ... and are subject to changes which you do NOT wish to happen.   It's like herding cats: you may be able to get them moving, but you have little or no control over the direction(s) they choose to take.

I Do Not Think That Word You Use Means What You Think It Means!

Ultimately, this well-intended, pie-in-the-sky proposal has a very good chance of bringing the entire pile-of-bricks which is the U.S. Constitution come tumbling down.    It may introduce a Constitutional Crisis which makes the already complex issue even more caustic

It's probably going to be a rough ride.

I sincerely hope you never who hope and pray for a total firearms ban never get your wish;
I can almost guarantee that you never get your wish ... and if you do, you will regret the can of worms you have opened. Not because of anything *-I-* may do or say, but because Americans are historically very jealous of their rights ... which no other nation has the courage to demand.

This is why we live in America: very few Americans migrate to states where their rights are not acknowledged.

Which is perhaps why so many of those states are Kleptocracies.

What Gun Owners Don't Like About "Universal Background Checks"


The thing that ticks me off about Background Checks is that the purpose is suppose to ensure that an individual who buys a gun is checked to insure that he's not a felon, or a crazy, etc. ... but what actually happens is that it turns into de facto registration of the firearm.

(Note that if someone is trying to privately sell an illegal firearm, he's sure not going to do a background check on YOU!)

The folks who respond to your background check swear upon the life of their sainted mother that they are not after your guns, so they don't keep permanent records of the transaction.

So why do they need the make, model and SERIAL NUMBER of the gun?   Their sole purpose is to validate YOUR right to legally own a firearm.

Do YOU believe they don't keep a permanent database?  Oh, perhaps not ALL of the data is permanently reserved .... but your name (etc) and the serial number (etc) are data items they will delete? 

The  Feds are like old ladies who cannot bear to throw away something they might need some day?
And do you believe them when they say:
"We are the United States of America ... why would we lie to you?"
(Notice they don't say they are NOT lying to you.)

And by the way, why do we have to go through a licensed gun dealer to sell a private firearm?  Why can't we do our own background check?  Invasion of privacy issues?   As if the feds aren't already invading our privacy.

NJT got it right:

New Jovian Thunderbolt: Grow the Second Amendment:
How bout getting rid of backdoor registration? Tie gun ownership to gun owners, rather than to guns.  You NICS check a person, not a purchase.  And gun owner they check should be people that are about to own a gun, or might want to in the future.  Does this 'gun owner' have a gun or is about to?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  

Monday, April 30, 2018

2nd Amendment an "incitement to violence"?

I reference this essay (by a man who I greatly admire for his ability to see both sides of an issue and treat both fairly) because ... Oh, Hell!

He seems to me to be the most honest man in the Modern Era, and he rarely writes a word which is not backed by his personal Honor.

The Rutherford Institute :: The Second Amendment: A Symbol of Freedom or An Invitation to Violence?:  *2014 Contributor*  John Whitehead)

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.
 Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.
 To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.
 And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

We could not ask for more.

... but if you DO ask for more, here it is!

If this is Tuesday, and I'm in a 3rd world hell-hole -- I must be in Brazil!

People like to think that, because Americans have the Second Amendment protection of their personal choice to own a firearm (and almost everybody can legally possess a firearm in America), it must be the Murder Capital of the World.



That uncomfortable Second Amendment allows us to own a firearm to protect ourselves.  So this must mean that we have more murders by firearm than any other country in the world.

Not necessarily:  "Struggling Countries" are often overwhelmed by members of their citizenry who are not reluctant to take advantage of their country's distraction.

Here' the summary of a Wapo article which counts "mass shootings"   Yes, America is right up there.
So, this proves that America is  the deadliest state in the world for murders by guns. 



Curiously, even American "Mass Shootings" combined with "Gangland Shootings" in America do not seem to compare with those in a country which has completely forbidden private ownership of firearms ... so the murder rate is only ascribable to those who DO own firearms.... more likely, those who have illegally acquired firearms to protect whatever *(criminal?)* endeavor in which they may have been engaged.

Some people might decide that forbidding firearms possession is a "mistake"  they may not be right, and a new Republic might be forgiven for trying to drain the swamp before drilling a new well.  But the point needs to be addressed sooner or later.

There's a country in South America which doesn't allow private citizens to own firearms.


Gun Ownership Is Illegal In Brazil, So People Are Taught To Never Fight Back - The Advocates for Self-Government:

The average citizen in Brazil is not legally permitted to own a gun.  This should, by Liberal thought, result in "Less Guns/Less Crime".

Brazil proves that this is a fallacy: the crime problem in this country is certainly being addressed by its government, but a large, rich country such as Brazil has problems of its own ... which America shares, in part if not in whole

 Brazil is, in fact, the Murder Capital of the World!

Less Guns, More Crime?  Not so!  

(Note: the following is personal conjecture; it is not a quote, so no source is cited.)
There are plenty of people who point to countries with fewer guns as models which they believe the United States should follow. However, there are few who take notice of Brazil, a country with far fewer guns but which still struggles with gun violence and death.   No one seems to take note, but the numbers are there for those who want to see them.
The conclusion is likewise obvious: fewer guns do not necessarily mean fewer deaths by guns.  According to UN statistics cited by the BBC of Brazil, Brazilians own 15 million firearms compared to 270 million held by Americans. Yet American deaths by guns in 2010 numbered 9,960, while Brazil listed close to 36,000 such deaths in 2009. It is also interesting to note that the population of Brazil is nearly 200 million while the United States has over 310 million.  Clearly, the problem is much more immediate in this vibrant, growing country.
So the next time someone tries to convince you that "More Guns In The Hands of Untrained Civilians will result in more murders ..


I'm reluctant to go on the record as someone who is pointing a finger at a foreign government as 'responsible" for civilian deaths.  I have no personal knowledge of anything that occurs outside my local area.   I only briefly research, and suggest possible conclusions.  Nobody should take this commentary to be conclusive evidence of wrong-doing by any governmental entity, anywhere in the world.   I rely on published (Internet) sources 100% and I do not have access to the root data provided by these sources.


California Gun and Ammunition Laws May Be Unconstitutional: professional shooter objects!

California''s Democratic  Rulers thought they were really onto  something. Since they can’t seem to control guns, even though they really keep trying to, they decided to control bullets instead. After all, what could go wrong with that?

They didn't figure that a National Figure would call them out on their paltry "Gun Control" plan, when California changed it to an "Ammunition Control" issue!

Olympic Medalist Files Suit Against California Over Bullet Control:
California " ...  Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
Six-time Olympic medalist Kim Rhode takes a bit of exception to the new rulesKim Rhodes has taken a stand in favor of law-abiding California gun owners who don't think that the Second Amendment has room for "Bullet Registration".

The newly enacted California State law offends the rights of lawful California firearms owners:
 " Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The fact that California is attempting new twists to Firearm Laws in order to impose even more stringent restrictions on its' citizens right to Keep and Bear Arms is not "New News" is apparent to everyone who tracks arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment in opposition the the rights of its citizens.

But this is just another assault on citizen rights; it's a new twist to an old rule, which is that California does not trust its citizens to safely and responsibly exercise their constitutional right to "Keep and Bear Arms" under the second Amendment.

National Assault Weapons Ban

A "National Assault Weapons Ban" may seem inevitable to some people, but I don't see it happening until a reasonable definition of the term "Assault Weapon" has been established.

Having beem under fire from an "Assalut Weapon", I am clear on MY definition of an "Assault Weapon::

::An "Assault Weapon" is a shoulder fired gun which is capable of  "selective fire": both semii-automatic fire (one round per pull of the trigger) and full-automatic fire (keeps shooting as long as the trigger is deoressed ,,, aka "Full Automatic Fire.   Examples are the M16 and the AK47.

A National Assault Weapons Ban is the Next Best Thing - Quote of the Day - The Truth About Guns:

April 29, 2018 at 08:02 "There is very little doubt, that bans on standard mags are going nationwide. A complete ban on semi auto rifles will be next. The writing is on the wall."


Contra Gun Philosophy:

There are two sides to the Second Amendment:
(1) those who thing that semi-automatic weapons are "Assault Weapons";
(2) those who think the semi-automatic weapons are a standard means of personal defense.

A National Assault Weapons Ban is the Next Best Thing - Quote of the Day - The Truth About Guns: “Otto Van Bismarck once said: ‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.’ For those who are looking for the repeal of the Second Amendment, I would urge them to abandon that hope and look to the ‘the next best:’ the imposition of a national ban on assault weapons.” 
Sol Wachtler in Keep assault weapons in the military [via]

These idiots who posit  so confidently don't actually know what an "Assault Weapon" is.

They think it's  any gun  which shoots one bullet every time you pull the trigger.
They would be surprised to learn that they have just defined a Double-Action Revolver ... which they are usually willing to accept as a "Safer Firearm".

A true "Assault Weapon" is (as an introductory course on Fierarms  Defininitions) one which fires a bullet until

Sunday, April 29, 2018

In Spain; criminals do not fear their victims can defend themselves

It was the opening day of the traditional Spanish "Running of the Bulls", when a woman was raped by 5 men in a downtown doorway.

The men were arrested and charged with a "lesser offense" than Rape, because ... SPAIN.

Thousands protest for third day in Pamplona over 'wolf pack' gang rape case:
Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets of Pamplona on Saturday to protest against the acquittal of five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman at the city’s bull-running festival. Demonstrators have filled streets across the country since the court ruling on Thursday, leading Spain’s conservative government to say it will consider changing rape laws. The men were acquitted of sexual assault, which includes rape, and sentenced to nine years for the lesser offence of sexual abuse.
*emphasis added*

I'm not sure what 'sexual abuse" is, but I'm pretty sure the "RAPE" includes a "one women, five men", public assault ...
The men, aged 27 to 29, had been accused of raping the woman at the entrance to an apartment building in Pamplona on July 7, 2016, at the start of the week-long San Fermin festival, which draws tens of thousands of visitors.
The five, all from the southern city of Seville, filmed the incident with their smartphones and then bragged about it on a WhatsApp messaging group where they referred to themselves as "La Manada", or "The Pack" in English. 
In Spain ... ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self defense.

When a lone, defenseless woman suffers a sexual attack on the street, and is disallowed by her government to defend herself by force of arms, she is at the mercy of a merciless pack of jackals,

A government which cannot defend its citizens, and will not allow them to defend themselves, is not a government; it is a failed patriarchy.

REMEMBER When seconds count, the police are ...  just minutes away  no help at all .   collecting evidence   blaming you for being a victim ...
You're on your own!
[H/T: 357 magnum}

Saturday, April 28, 2018

The Death of a Thousand Cuts

I don't know how much longer I will be able to maintain this BLOGGER website.  My posting may be inaccessible without notice, and I may not be able to recover from BLOGGER's new Security System.

There are so many NEW internet links and so many unique identities and passwords (which I have easily managed over the past 10 years)  ...

... well, let me explain.

Not the best "Welcome To The Neighborhood" approach

Woman Confronts Robber With Gun and Makes Him Flee For His Life:
 A woman in Memphis, Tennessee, is being credited with scaring a robber off her uncle's property after she grabbed her handgun.

Nobody was injured in the (apparent) day-time home invasion, but it suggests that self-defense is better than 911.

This picture is on the original article, but I've embedded it because it was just too good to risk having it "go away"

Florida to espouse States Rights v The Constitution?

In an Opinion Article published in the Miami Herald, the author suggests that:
The NRA suing the Florida Legislature is like a parent suing the children. That’s Mom and Dad taking Johnny to court because he won’t eat his broccoli.
(Link and full quote below the fold)

(The reference is to Florida's attempt to limit the rights of its citizens to own firearms; the state has more "rigorous" restrictions on just who, when and why its citizens may possess guns.)

I have no idea what point the author was trying to make in the above quote; but I quite comprehend the rancor which is illustrated in the following quote:
Of course, the NRA picked as its target a patsy who probably won’t fight back too hard. It doesn’t have the guts to go after its real enemy, the courageous children of Parkland.
The NRA, as a representative organization of sportsmen and other legal firearms owners, is unlikely to "go after its real enemy" identified by the Author as "courageous children".   The NRA is all about civil and constitutional rights, and its members demand that it protect the First Amendment as assiduously as the Second Amendment.

The very idea that this membership would continence an attack on patriotic teenagers ... even those who (wrongly) accuse the NRA of fomenting firearms violence ... is anathema.    The author of this article has a private agenda, and has resorted to distortion of the truth and condemnation of strangers in an attempt to paint them with a bloody brush.

In point of fact, the Federal Government does have the power to impose Constitutional Rights on states which have historically denied them.  Witness SELMA ( do your  homework), where President Dwight David Eisenhower sent troops into Alabama to protect the rights of African-American children to get the SAME educational opportunities as white children ... as opposed to the "Separate-but equal" sham (which was far from equal, but certainly separate) acts of southern states who tried to maintain their apartheid restrictions on many of their citizens.
(The ACLU is great on protecting the First Amendment, but few rights supporters stand up for the Second.   That's why Americans rely on the Constitution, instead of the sometimes-misguided efforts of states.)
It's not about "GUTS", and the author is wrong (and knows he's wrong) to suggest it.
The NRA's only enemies are those who would undermine or deny Constitutional Rights to its citizens.   That's the reason for its existence, and the reason why over five million (that's 5,000,000 to those who are unfamiliar with, or don't understand the Bill of Rights) law-abiding American Citizens accept the National Rifle Association as their representatives in combating anti-constitutional laws at the local, state and national level.  

Friday, April 27, 2018

"Nobody was hurt": Second Amendment Peaceful Protest In Colorado

In an "Open Carry" demonstration in Boulder, Colorado recently ...

.... some ... a few ... many ... most ... all of the protesters were  carrying firearms which may or may not have been loaded with live ammunition.

Nobody asked, nobody told.  And it didn't matter.

Boulder police made 'tactical decision' to let demonstrators break city gun law during protest - Boulder Daily Camera:

 It's illegal in Boulder to openly carry a firearm unless it's held in a "carrying case" — a holster for a handgun, for example, or something larger and easily recognizable in the case of a larger weapon. And, yet, on Saturday afternoon in downtown Boulder, some among the group that lined Broadway to rally in opposition to the City Council's proposed ban on assault weapons stood with AR-15-style rifles slung over their shoulders.

'The most important thing about Saturday's rally was that no one was hurt and no one's rights were infringed,'

City Attorney Tom Carr, who said the police did not intervene as open-carry laws were being broken because doing so might have escalated the situation.
Well, that's the way it ought to be.  You break the law, you go to jail; but nobody broke the PEACE, which served to demonstrate that the People of The Gun are a peaceful folk, whose priority is to observe the implied criteria of the Second Amendment:

"Shall Not Be Infringed!:\

 If you can't trust a man with a gun, you cannot trust anybody.

"Oh, The Humanity!" (Illegal to teach your kids "Gun Safety")

New "Civil Wrong": Going To A Shooting Range with your progeny! 

Apparently it's Anathema to teach your children  to exercise their constitutional rights.
Internet Star Ken Bone Says Son Was Suspended From School For Going To A Gun Range | Daily Wire:
Ken Bone, the man who became Internet famous for asking questions during one of the 2016 Presidential debates (and for wearing a now-iconic red pullover), says his son was suspended from school pending an investigation after Bone posted a photo of him and his son getting time in at the gun range.

Nobody wants to take your guns away!

But it's perfectly "OKAY!" to take away your child's Educational Rights if you have taught him/her how to safely and responsibly use a firearm.

And by extension, there's something wrong with the Constitutional Rights of the Second Amendment.

Support your Constitution; defend it against Liberals who are searching for ways to teach your children that your failure to support of the Second Amendment is license to abrogate all of their other civil rights.

That's not just wrong ... it's Dead Wrong!

FOAD, Liberals!

Gun Owner Offends Writer For Posing in an Unacceptable Manner

"Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

Why Not?   He's at  a GUN RANGE!

Parkland Teacher Attacks Kyle Kashuv Over Gun Photo | Daily Wire:

This photo was apparently NOT taken at a "School", so the presence of a young man holding a rifle is not obviously a threat to a school

It's possible that  the criticism is because the photo shows the young man at a shooting range, facing UP RANGE, and he is behind the line of fire.   But there's no reason to believe that the firing line had not been cleared before the photo was taken.

But the comment is "... hold their gun ...", and all we can tell from the photo is that:
 (a) his finger is OFF the trigger;
 (b) the gun seems to be unloaded (no magazine inserted);
 (c) the muzzle is not discernibly pointing "up-range".

There's nothing "unacceptable" with his firearms safety procedures.

Here's the "posed manner":

Photo Source:*Kyle Kashuv on Twitter*
NOTE: "Range Rules" not obviously violated. The Critic doesn't identify the "problem".

Here is the article's full quote from the critical teacher, in the context of the Daily Wire article:

In response to a photo that was taken of Kashuv, American History teacher Greg Pittman tweeted: "As a teacher from Stoneman Douglas, any student posting photos holding guns, knives or other weapons would be questioned. 4 federal cases have ruled in the last 10 years that assault weapons are not protected. Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."
The quote's emphasis seems to suggest that the criticism concerns the validity of Student + Photo + Guns/Weapons = BAD!

My Opinion:
Any American who is not forbidden by virtue of insanity, felonious history, or certain other legal bans (include domestic violence ) is acknowledged by the Constitution to the right keep and bear arms.   Age Limits may apply; parental discretion is a defense.

I am not criticizing the author's opinion; it's only that he doesn't specify WHY he considers the subject's "Pose" to be unacceptable.  Unless and until he clarifies his statement, we are left to conjecture ... which is often based on assumptions of our own.

Proposed limit to magazine capacity in Oregon

NEWS ALERT: Federal Judge Rejects California Mag Ban - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog:
(June 29, 2017)
 a federal judge has rejected a California law that was set to take effect to ban the ownership and possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said that people should be able to use firearms with “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation”. A testimony to individual liberty I personally find refreshing.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Confident Pelosi: counting chickens ...

She may just be right.  Republicans haven't fielded a respectable Presidential candidate for some time.

Confident Pelosi: Dems Ready to Push Amnesty, Gun Control ‘When We Win’ in Nov | Breitbart:
A confident House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) predicted on Tuesday that Democrats will take back the House and immediately push for amnesty for so-called Dreamers and more gun-control legislation. “When we win and we take over in January, some of the issues that will come up soon are some of the issues that we are asking the Speaker to do right now,” she said at a Georgetown University event.
I suggest that Trey Gowdy would be the most electable Republican in America today.  He is bright, articulate, and speaks to conservative views ... which Donald Trump (elected because the alternative was Hillary Clinton) cannot claim in good conscience.

I have no idea why Gowdy has suddenly left the political view; has he become disillusioned with his party?  (If so, he's not the only one.)

A Gowdy presidency  .. he was not born with the most serious family name possible ... would offer a clear choice between himself and anyone the Democrats could offer.   The most salient characteristic in the blog is, of course, that he's still "Not Hillary", but also that he is a constitutionalist.

He believes in the traditional American values, and is not inclined to ignore the Constitution if favor of Liberal priorities.   Also, he's a successful lawyer and past District Attorney, so he has a clear understanding of the difference between Right and Wrong.  (Again, not a Democratic Party platform.)

Shucks, if the too-shy Gowdy declines to run for President, I am probably not the only Conservative who is going to enter him as a "Write-in Candidate".

Which would undermine the Republican voters (if Gowdy is not on the slate) and probably guarantee another four years of Democratic Party chicanery.

Well, if that's what it takes to get a Presidential Candidate who offers a clear alternative to Democratic vote-buying, I can stomach another Democrat that I won't vote for ... ever.

Don't listen to what they say

“We don’t want to take your guns, we just want to take your guns that we don’t like.”:

There is a "class" of people who think that the Constitution of the United States should be "rewritten" to recognize the values which have  (in their mind) become preponderate in our country.

The Second Amendment is at the top of their "hit list", because it subtly proposes that each American is responsible for his/her own safety and security.
Men are responsible for their own self defense, as well as for the defense of their family, their peer group, their clan ... everyone for whom men feel  a social connection in which every member supports every other member.
In this situation, and in Modern America, men have accepted their responsibility by arming themselves and by practicing the skills which enable them to defend their. peer group.

As for the confiscation of firearms, men deem the ownership of firearms to be required in a Free state: if we cannot defend our Family,, we are  freeloaders who contribute nothing to Society. 

That's permissible, but it is not a "High Value" status in the clan: it's a "hanger-on" a person who is not competent, and is only accepted because his contribution adds to the social value, not the continuation, of the Clan.

Those who would deprive us of our right to self-defense are not NOT among our "support group",

They choose to arbitrarily determine what actions we might take in our priority to survive, and their priorities are political rather than practical. 

They are typically not responsible for their own safety ... they hire guns, but do not carry them.

"Those poople" usually have not been "shot at".   They are very comfortable in their cocoon of inexperience.  They glory in their supposed value ("Hey, I'm a STAR!) and the expense of hiring guards in off-set by the publicity value.

You and I don't have any publicity value, and therefore we need to provide our own self-defence.

I've been "shot at:.  I didn't enjoy the experience and I take responsibility for my own personal well-being.  But I was in a war zone, and I ws drafted.


Monday, April 23, 2018

‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’

‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’: n June 2015, in the wake of another mass shooting incident that left nine victims dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, debate about the issue of gun control flared up again in the U.S. In the midst of that debate, a number of social media users pointed to a November 2014 Counter Current News article purportedly describing an effort by British police to disarm the citizenry of dangerous “pointy knives”:

Michael Bloomberg Wants To Be Gun Czar?

Anybody who listens to Michael Bloomberg is a damn fool.

"There's no leadership" on gun reform, says Michael Bloomberg - CBS News:
"I think all of us have a responsibility between now and then, call your congressman, call your senator, and say we want you to do something about this. I don't want to have my child at risk. I don't want to personally be at risk from crazy people with -- should, who shouldn't have guns," Bloomberg said.

The crazy thing about "calling your congressman ...." and saying "..we want you to do something about this" (speaking of Gun Control legislature) is that your congress-critter has no better idea what to "Do About This" than does Bloomberg, who thinks crazy people are those who don't agree with him.

Well ... except "Mister and Mrs America, Turn 'em All In!"

(Sorry ... a Nancy Pelosi moment; I'm just overwhelmed with emotion. Give me a minute?)

Thanks ... I feel better now.

But (CONFISCATION) is the only possible solution to the "Gun Control Problem".  As long as one single private citizen has access to a firearm, the gun deaths will just keep rolling in.    You know it's true; Nancy Pelosi said so!

The solution is to make guns illegal.   That way nobody will ever get shot again.

Except that the people who turn in their guns will have no defense against criminals, who  have this evil smirk on their faces, hoping that civilians will voluntarily render themselves defenseless against predation.  Because criminals don't NEED guns to assault the weaker members of our society ... such as old people, like me.   Guns just make their jobs so much easier, as long as they are the "Only Ones" who have guns.

So if you give up your guns ... well, you do the math.   The guns will be melted down, Ford will buy the slag and build 10 million cars that nobody wants, and you will be unable to outrun a bullet from the guy who carjacks your Ford Fiesta.  Because for DAMN sure, he didn't give up HIS gun! (Except why anyone wants to own a Ford Fiesta I'll never know ... do they even make them any more?

Here's where Nancy Pelosi's advice becomes useful:  "Mr and Mrs America, Give Up Your Ford Fiestas ... Give 'Em All Up!"

(If gun control works, wait until the Liberals follow up with "Knife Control"!
 See how well that has worked in Not-So-Great Britain!)

This is your future:

2018 Ford Fiesta Titanium Hatch in Outrageous Green cruising the highway

top shooting deaths around the world

Parkland Student Calls For Confiscation Of All Semi-Automatic Firearms | Daily Wire:

 The top-6 deadliest mass shootings in world history: 
 1. 2017 Egyptian Mosque Attack, 305 deaths
 2. 2015 Kenya College Attack, 148 deaths
 3. 2014 Pakistan School Massacre, 141 deaths
 4. 2015 Paris Attacks, 130 deaths
 5. 2011 Norway Attacks, 67 deaths
 6. 2013 Kenya Shopping Mall Attack, 67 deaths

Portland mayor tells student rally he'll seek city-wide 'assault weapon' ban

Portland mayor tells student rally he'll seek city-wide 'assault weapon' ban: Though Wheeler may want city leaders to act tough on guns, state firearm preemption laws forbid local governments from regulating the “sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use” of guns in any way. But the former Oregon State Treasurer and political ally of Gov. Kate Brown said he is going to work on that as well. “I am going to Salem during this next legislative session and I’m going to ask the Governor and the legislature to lift the preemption in Oregon,” Wheeler said.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Global Warning decreases school violence? You have GOT to be kidding me! (How about those coal burning furnaces, eh? Answer me that!)

Some people will go to extravagant ends to justify their theories, even at the risk of allowing themselves to be identified as fools.   You have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with "Gun Control"?

On the anniversary of the Columbine shooting, examining the science behind why better gun control really will stop school violence — Quartz

In 1963, Britain experienced 5,714 suicides. Over the next several years, that number declined steadily and quickly; by 1975, the country had 3,693 suicides. This decline took place against a rise in suicides throughout the rest of Europe. Social scientists started looking for something to explain the drop. What they realized was that the decrease in suicide had coincided with the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958.

First, the title of the article suggests that the topic is "School Violence" .. but the dominant text seems to address British Suicides!

The rest of the article seems to be on track with the "British Suicide" theme, but it doesn't lead into the title topic: "Gun control ... will really stop school violence".

Here's the lame explanation proffered later in the screed:

Opponents of gun control often argue that if we take guns away, those intent on killing or committing crimes with them will simply “find another way.” 

(I don't  argue against that; it's Suicide 101.)

Another Clarke and Mayhew study, for example, found that thefts of motorcycles dropped as much as 60% in Germany after a law was implemented requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. Because these thefts tended to be crimes of opportunity rather than planned heists, potential thieves were dissuaded from stealing motorcycles due to the increased likelihood of getting caught if they were pulled over for not wearing a helmet.
What the heck?  We bounced from Suicide, to Gun Control, with a short stop-0ver at Columbine!   And now we're talking about motorcycle Theft?  And safety helmet laws?

Am I the only one who can't keep track of the theme of this screed?

Finally, the author decided that the cause-and-effect relationship was determined by ... what was it again?

.... the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958

Oh, yeah, right: carbon monoxide poisoning from Coal Gas.

British humor: we "Amies" can't always  tell whether they're "having us on" or ... what?

Minnesota HF3022: The Face of the Future?

Funny thing; I always thought the law was intended to protect the innocent and our Human Rights.
Today, we see states deliberately formulating laws to make criminals of law-abiding citizens, and undermining Constitutional Rights. 

It's a funny world we live in, isn't it?  But not humorous; no, not at all.

Incredible Anti-Gun Bill Introduced in MN -

I couldn't do a better job than All Outdoor dot Com describing this egregious (and unconstitutional) Minnesota bill, other than to note the subtitle on the original article:
... and the subtitle:
If you live in Minnesota, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then get busy.
A very quick summary of the "Features" of this bill:  Universal reporting, State has total control over every firearms transfer, restrictions on "gun features" which have no bearing on either safety or lethality, mandatory confiscation,  and for a grand finale ....

Universal Registration of all firearms owners, and the personal details (including name, address, etc.) of firearms owners are entered  in a database which is available to General Public Search.
I don't know if this bill will ever be enacted in Minnesota; it's enough that their elected representatives have the unmitigated gall to propose a bill which provides no safety or other benefits to their voters, and still manages to increase their vulnerability to violent crime.

This is a Great Benefit to burglars in Minnesota; they know where, when and why to strike any private residence in the state; one of the most sought-after items of "loot" from a burglary is a firearm.  God only knows how many times it will change hands in the criminal community until it's finally found discarded at the scene of a murder, and with so many fingerprints on it that it can only perchance be traced to the original owner (who might not even yet realize that it has been stolen.)

I've often suggested that many politicians were crooks at heart, but this is the first time we have had confirmation that they are enablers of Home Invasions.

Of course, there are no practical measures which an individual may use to protect himself against his on state Legislature ... except the vote.   Oh, and Minnesota is a Democratic state ... you don't even have to be an American Citizen to vote.   So ... forget that; there are probably more illegal aliens that natural born citizens in your state (and mine) already.

In case my friends and neighbors are feeling comfortable saying "It Could Never Happen Here"?

I live in Oregon.  Oregon is a Democratic State.

Democrats are like rats in the woodwork; they pop up without warning, they defile their environment and eat the wiring until it shorts out and the house burns down.   Then it's not fit to live in for anyone but more rats.

Okay, maybe I've taken the analogy too far.

But what if I'm not wrong?