The Gun Blogs

Gun dealer used by Va. Tech shooter sold supplies, holster to NIU killer

"I was just shocked," said Eric Thompson, 34, whose company TGSCOM Inc. sells weapons over the Internet. "There are over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S."

Shocked. Shocked!

The shop is in a working-class neighborhood. Signs in the front yard say "Tony's Guns and Ammo." The shop is in a fenced-in building behind a home.

Sounds shady to me. Call the Goon Squad! This article isn't really infected with PSH, it's a carrier.

I wouldn't want to be in Tony's shoes right about now.

I'm sure the ATF is already in motion.

I've never liked metal detectors - well, except for the ones you use to look for lost items and buried treasure. It's the ones set up as barriers that I don't like.

I've been thinking about why I don't like them and realized that it's because they're Un-American.

The American Justice system was founded upon the then-radical principle of "innocent until proven guilty." It's arguable as to whether or not we're still operating on that principle, but in theory that's the basis.

But metal detectors are based on a presumption of guilt.

When I'm getting on an airplane, if you're assuming I'm a good person who is and will be innocent of wrongdoing then you won't really care what I have in my pockets. There are some things you'll want to warn me about using on a plane - for example the altitude tends to make butane lighters somewhat more... enthusiastic than they are at ground level which lead to more than a few signed nose hairs back in the day.

Now if you think I'm not a good person - someone who's likely to do something evil while on the plane then you definitely want to know what I have in my pockets so you can do your best to keep me from causing any problem.

So I'm not ranting against passenger screening - I think it's a good thing. But I am against the procedure they currently do. It's not 'passenger' screening, it's just a shakedown of the passerby. If they want it to work then they'll need to actually pay attention to the passengers rather than their pockets.

Similarly, when I go to a concert or sporting event I not only think they have a right to kick / keep out 'fans' who disrupt the event and/or pose a hazard to others, I wish they'd do a better job of it. But I need someone to please explain to me why you need to see my car keys in order to achieve this?

Wouldn't it make more sense to check on me rather than my possessions? If I'm the upright solid citizen I appear to be then a 1" blade on my fingernail clippers will not present a hazard and does not need to be confiscated.
If I'm a dastardly evil sod intent on creating mayhem you can be sure that there are many, many things that I can not only freely bring in past your metal detector but can also obtain inside that will let me wreak great havok. Weapons are only tools plus attitude. If you don't have the right attitude then you will never be armed no matter what you hold (but you can still be dangerous). If you've got the proper attitude then anything is a weapon waiting for you to use it.

Which is why metal detectors are useless. They won't stop someone intent on doing wrong. At most they'll (slightly) incovenience them. They may cause the malfactor to not use a gun, but they won't stop them from bringing in bottles of flammable liquid. If I really want to use a gun on the far side of your metal detector then I'll either slip myself and/or the gun past it or I'll just shoot your (usually unarmed) 'Security Guard'.

Metal dectectors can really only do one thing (other than annoy): enforce a climate of dependence and helplessness.

And in a country founded on the concept of Individual Liberty that's definitely Un-American.

In a "better late than never" moment, the NRA (via SayUncle)
calls out Jayne Lyn Stahl on her Opinion piece (of shit) Another Poster Child for the NRA (which I talked about here) and can still be found here)

The article was published by the Atlantic Free Press here. One reason for the outcry this time around was the Atlantic's use of an NRA symbol with a picture of the Wisconsin mass murderer in the middle.

However, now the symbol is gone and the article has been prefaced with an admonition/paranoid screed that starts out like this:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Read the First Amendment once again - it's one that you claim you defend with your guns.

I find it lame beyond belief when someone writes up something as objectionable as the article mentioned above, then invokes the First Amendment. I realize this is a "Publisher's Note", but what is it really? A bunch of whining sissies who got their nose bloodied and are running to mommy.

Just as the NRA bases its political activity on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that infringe the freedom of speech and infringe the freedom of the press) protects the right of Jayne Lyn Stahl to express her OPINION.

It also protects the rights of those who find her opinion silly, paranoid or downright odious to express their OPINION. Freedom, meet responsibility.

Some of you who have written in claim that NRA members are law abiding, etc but others, at the same time, have made some pretty serious threats via email - which negates the other claims completely.

No it doesn't, it just shows diversity of opinion. That's a good thing, right? You shouldn't be making faulty and inflexible generalizations. That would be stereotyping.

Furthermore, the image was not chosen and created by Stahl but rather the editorial team.

Then you all are a bunch of assholes.

Our publication is not USA-based and we reserve the right to print what we want (our laws protect Freedom of Speech as well)

Not USA based? I don't care. You can be from the second ring of Saturn for all I care. Print what you want? Sure thing, sunbeam. I write what I want as well. Unlike you, I'm man enough to take any criticism that comes my way because of it.

whether or not we fully agree with what has been published.

I'm sure you fully agreed with what was published. It fits your world view.

I'm not going to address the rest of the "publishers note" for two reasons. One, you're not from the USA, so your opinion of my country does not interest me in the least. Second, anyone who refers to an administration as a "plutocratic kleptocracy" isn't worth any more of my time. Get back to me after you start shaving.

On another note, I don't fault the NRA for being two weeks late to this dance. They have their own way of doing things.

Finally, anyone who threatened the life of Ms. Stahl via e-mail or any other means should be subject to all applicable laws. Killing someone for being stupid is against the law.

Here, we have Seth Wickersham of ESPN does a hit piece on guns. (all emphasis mine)

Before even getting to the story, the reader is greeted with this photo caption:

Tank Johnson must live with the fact that his passion for guns is considered strange by most people.

Then the story begins:

Nobody needs to tell Tank Johnson why this bubbly, petite, frosted blonde is suddenly not so bubbly, why her blue eyes are darting around, why her hands are fidgeting and her voice is unsure. He knows.
....

Johnson is trying hard to be friendly too, because he knows what a Google search will bring up: that his fascination -- obsession, really -- with guns has led to all kinds of legal problems in the past two years; that while he was a member of the Bears last December his suburban Chicago home was raided by a SWAT team, where, according to reports, six guns, 500 rounds of ammo and two ounces of pot were found;

Granted, Johnson's no choirboy, but I have to point out that the only reason those guns were illegal is because he was in Chicago.

Taking a different approach, the reporter then likens shooting to drug addiction:

He spent his off-days at the shooting range. Standing before a target, he cradled and caressed his Colt AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle the way a musician does a guitar. Then he strapped on his "eyes and ears" -- goggles and headset -- and craned his neck to see the world through a scope, holding his breath as his finger encircled the trigger. There was a dreamlike serenity in this silent calibration, until he softly squeezed and his rifle coughed short and sharp, spitting out casings like sunflower seed shells.

Only after heat hit his palms and the stinging cloud of gunpowder filled his lungs and adrenaline coursed through him -- only after a faint, tiny, gorgeous white cloud signaled a hit 100 yards away -- did Tank Johnson exhale. "It's like shooting a game-winning free throw every time," he says.

....

In 1994, not long after the 12-year-old Johnson settled with his dad in Tempe, Ariz., a buddy's older brother handed him a pistol during a camping trip. One shot and the kid was hooked. The trigger's soothing, addictive power gave Johnson peace for the first time in his life. "I was like, Man, when I'm able to buy my own gun I'm going to so I can shoot," he says.

Amazing, truly amazing.

Your tax dollars at work

Including $1,000 from the Glynn County Police Department, the city has spent $3,000 in its gun bounty program to recover seven weapons including the SKS and an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles, a sawed-off .22-caliber rifle and five handguns, county and city police officials said.

I put the value of theose weapons at about half of what's been spent to recover them, not including the wages and other daily expenses associated with getting them "off the streets". Oh, and that SKS was referred to as an "assault rifle", of course. Florida is still in full PSH mode in this area.

This guys is either an idiot or a liar.

The AK 47 was illegal for any civilian to own until 2004 when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired.

This guy's OK.

Any weapon that can galvanize one group to implement blanket restrictions and another to ante up four figures to win it, I had to see for myself.

I wish more people thought as you do.

Not once did I pull the trigger in anger, and my uninformed newbie questions didn’t seem to scare anybody.

Guns don't exhibit mind control, and gun loving folks aren't nasty, uneducated rednecks? Please tell the Brady Bunch that, please. Please.

To defuse the slogan, people alone don’t kill people any more than guns do. Unbalanced and untrained people with access to guns kill people.

Good point

Personally, the world I inhabit sits between the weapon-free, Coke-and-a-smile one and the one where everybody sleeps with one eye open.

That's where normal-thinking people reside, I reckon.

I’ll file my own trip to the range under “trying a new hobby” rather than “preserving fundamental rights.” But I won’t clink champagne glasses with politicians who think outlawing weapons like that means any kind of victory.

That's where normal-thinking people reside. Wait, I already said that. It is just a hobby, after all. Keep that in mind when someone wants to take your hobby away from you.

... when you write about something you have no experience with:

A Ban on Assault Weapons in the US must go ahead

Even if a new ban fails to put a dent in gun crime, there must be attention drawn to the issue and the legislation should be symbolic and a beacon for common sense and civility. How, on earth, can anyone possible argue the case that it is a person’s right and indeed his or her need, to own a machine gun? The type you see in Die Hard or Boys ‘n’ the Hood. They make a lot of noise, they cause a hell of a lot of damage, though in reality, they work like they do in the not-so-unrealistic A-Team…in that it is virtually impossible to hit the people you aim for. Your clip runs out and all you’ve done is put a shit loads of holes into two dozen cardboard boxes and a nearby Lincoln.

Seems our over-the-pond friends watch too many Hollywood movies. That, and they don't know the difference between a machine gun and semi-automatic rifle that looks cool/scary/kinda military-like. Extra (un)cool points for the A-Team reference.

I jest, as the consequences of using such weapons are potentially horrific. They cause absolute carnage and put everyone else’s safety at risk. The notion of being allowed to possess an M-16 is an absolute farce. The fact that in the States you can currently get hold of arms like this beggars belief.

That fact that you don't know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 doesn't beggar belief. Many people don't. What beggars belief is you writing about it. Pretending to know anything about guns (which you plainly don't) is an absolute farce. Your use of the term "allowed" speaks volumes.

Funny enough (surprise, surprise) the pathetic and disgusting decision to NOT re-enforce the ban was because of George Bush’s actions. Or should I say, inaction.

Oh, really? It's Bush's fault? I thought it was Congress' responsibility to write laws, not the President. Say what you want about the President saying he's sign an extension of the Ban, the fact of the matter is it never reached him beacuse the people of the United States wanted the ban to go away. That's the way we do things here.

Here’s an article from USA Today dating back to 2004 when the ban expired:

Here is the article that I'm not gonna bother to read. Why not? Because the picture says it all.

A Boise Gun Co. gunsmith holds a Ruger mini-14 rifle, which has been illegal since the assault weapons ban went into effect 10 years ago.

News for you, sunbeam, never reference a story that can't even get the facts straight on it's photo caption. The Mini-14 was never banned. You'd have to replace the stock (you know what a stock is, right?) with a pistol grip/folding stock variety before it would fit "assault weapon" criteria.

The final paragraph speaks volumes:

A ban, should it transpire, may not cause a dent on gun crime, simply because most crimes are committed with small guns, like Glocks and other hand guns. Yet it is a step forward and symbolic more than anything. It will keep the momentum up for the anti-gun lobby (the fact there needs to be a lobby for this is a joke in itself) and keep the cause in the media. I only hope for the sake of our cousins o’er the pond that one day, sanity will reign true, and something is done to crush the prevalence and legality of gun ownership.

If these guns are not being used in crimes, why ban them? If banning guns is a good thing, why is your violent crime rate skyrocketing? Why is gun crime on the rise? You gonna blame Bush for that, too?

And what's whith this whole "symbolic" thing? What that says to me is "We know these weapons aren't really a danger, but ban them anyway."

Hey, if you're scared of guns, fine. Stay away from them. Just don't try to foist your fear on those of us who choose to take responsibility for both our actions and security.

Another Poster Child for Reasoned Discourse (tm)
(Alternate Title: Jayne Lyn Stahl Dances in the Blood of the Dead)

Via Unc comes this piece of trash from Jayne Lyn Stahl.

I'll pull out a few of the more idiotic bits.

That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.

I don't get that statement at all. Police shouldn't carry weapons? Shouldn't use them when necessary?

Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.

This is where I get to call Ms. Stahl a baldfaced liar. Not often I get to do that, but there are numerous references citing Great Britain's soaring violent crime rate after they enacted strict gun control.

There are many who .... say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers.

Many? Name one, please. That is the stupidest thing I've read (so far). No one with two brain cells left to rub together would make such a statement.

While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well.

For you and your ilk, we're all gun-toting madmen. And since when is being a cowboy a bad thing?

We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review.

They usually do. Of course, that wouldn't fit your world view, so just pretend it never happens.

We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers

We who? Again, two brain cells is all it takes to understand that way of thinking is foolish.

just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.

Why, in a country with millions of guns, aren't there millions of gun crimes on a daily basis? Increasingly, it's because responsible gun owners don't go shooting people willy-nilly.

This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.

No, the true "poster children" of the NRA are the ones calling you on this issue, pointing out your inaccuracies and lies.

It's taken me the better part of the morning to carve out the non-gun related stupid. There's so much there, I have to say I'm impressed. The best part comes in comments where, after one negative comment, she says

You know, I'm really getting disgusted with the comments on this blog. I got my facts DIRECTLY from the Associated Press report Sunday morning.

Who gets their facts DIRECTLY from the Brady Bunch, natch.

You can't make this stuff up. Like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

To see more of Ms Stahl's "work" go here.. It's a good representation of the "blame America first" (and Israel second) crowd, as well as hit pieces on the military (she would have us believe the Army's overrun with neo-nazis), plenty of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and a dash of "evil corporate America" thrown in for good measure.

UPDATE: Speaking of Cowboys, check out this post concerning tough guys and the code of the west.

(h/t to baldilocks)

UPDATE THE SECOND: Lawdog has more cowboy stuff!

Yeee Haaaa!

Here I go again, reading Brady Bunch e-mails so you don't have to. Found this one in my inbox this morning. Here's the good bits:

The problem is that many states fail to supply thousands and thousands of records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy weapons without being stopped.

The Virginia Tech massacre is a horrific example of the dangers of this data gap. The killer was able to buy guns even though he was legally prohibited from doing so, because the records indicating that he had been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous were not in NICS when his background checks were conducted.

Another tragedy like Virginia Tech could happen tomorrow. We must act now to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Please send your email today.

Here's What You Can Do to Help Strengthen Brady Background Checks:

1. Click Here to Email Your U.S. Senators Today.
Urge them to strengthen Brady background checks. One click will email both of your Senators.

2. Donate $25 to the Brady Campaign to Help Us Lobby the Senate.
Strengthening Brady background checks to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns is one of our top priorities. Please support our efforts with a donation today.

3. Spread the Word.
Our Senators need to hear from as many of us as possible. Use our tool to forward this email to friends and family.

(all emphasis original)

Don't you love the "sky is falling" tone of this whole thing? Up to the "send us money" part, anyway.

They could have been more consistent by saying

"Send us $25, or felons, wife beaters and crazy people will shoot up YOUR school tomorrow!"

I got this from Ahab a little while ago. It's a quote from Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty:

“Let’s ban handguns in Ontario,” he said. “Let’s ban handguns across the country. Let’s declare war against handguns.”

Run of the mill gun grabbing PSH you say? Not especially stupid, as quotes go, you say?

It is, once you find out it's a reaction to a stabbing.

It boggles the mind....

Here is an extreme case of an Anti-Gun Pants Shitter. He's hard to argue with, mainly because he doesn't have any facts. Just invective in ALL CAPS and even BOLD ALL CAPS. (Can multiple punctuation marks be far behind?!?!?!?!?!?!)

Here are a few tidbits from the sidebar of his site:

This blog exists as a source of dissemination of factual information on guns, gun violence, the victims and perpetrators of that violence, and political efforts to make our society safer.

Sounds good so far, right? It doesn't last long.

I am a busy man. Posting material and arguments here takes up a lot of the spare time I have. I have no desire to respond over and over again to such silliness.

Where have I heard that before? Here, for one and here as well. The only desire of these types is one-way conversation.

If you would like to add something useful to the material I've posted here, by all means, please do. Your thoughtful comments are welcome.

Somehow I think "thoughtful" is a synonym for "thinking like I think" in this case.

Finally, an attempt at taking the moral high ground:

I do this work for the life of my daughter and the memory of my sisters Tia (1968-1993) and Shannon (1969-1997), both victims of American gunism

Vague enough to lead most folks to thinking there was tragedy involved without ever saying so. Color me skeptical. What gunism is, I have no idea.

What got me going on this guy wasn't anything he's posted (it's all drivel), but this posting by 308Mike at The Gun Thing

It's the Mauser/Kates report, all about facts and stuff. You know, the stuff people like Alex don't want to hear.

Mike says:

In their analysis, Kates and Mauser compared different countries, different population groups and different types of interpersonal violence, homicide and suicide throughout much of recorded history, and found that the old anti-gun axioms that you so often hear are false:

* More firearms do not equate to more homicide or more suicide.

* Fewer firearms do not equate to less homicide or less suicide.

In fact, more often than not, just the opposite is true.

I bet Alex and Bryan Miller are falling over each other to get a copy of this. Or not.

It's also available for (free) download at that location (can't get the link to work here), so go get a copy!

Anything to further Reasoned Discourseâ„¢ .