Saturday, 02 June 2012 11:58

Shooting at Canada mall leaves 1 dead, 7 injured

Written by

Another non-U.S. tragedy of violence. This is in a country where the police must turn in their guns after their shift. At my GAC the only Canadian LEO was embarassed to admit to the the other LEOs who were as shocked/surprised as me (clarification: I am not an LEO). Unfortunately, this will probably result in more restrictions for law abiding citizens who already can't carry a firearm. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/02/shooting-at-canada-mall-leaves-1-dead-others-injured/

So, in a continuing 'study' on how firearms are used by pop culture ' (I have a post on Ashton Kucher and Demi Moore shooting, and recently about fashion couture finding out about CCW clothes) I found this article: "Selena Gomez and LeAnn Rimes Grab Guns -- Plus Did Justin Bieber Break Up with Selena?"

In the article I was pleasantly surprised that LAnne Rimes and Selena Gomez are actually shooters and not afraid to let it be known:

And although Rimes knows her way around an M4, she's a big proponent of keeping the peace.

I was also pleased that the article wasn't written in a completely anti-gun slant. However, either the author was trying to drum up drama (well, look up the source) or shooting for recreation (other than "blowing off steam") seemed a foreign concept.

Check out these quotes:

The gals might have grabbed guns because of some recent tabloid stories and rumors, using them as a way to show certain people that you don't mess with Texas girls.

What?

Selena Gomez: "Released some stress today." So was the stress simply from work and being in a foreign country far away from her friends and family, or is something else bothering Selena?

What?

Anyway, the source  is "OMG Yahoo!" so I am surprised that the Kardashians weren't somehow tied into it.

A small win, however, is that firearms are mentioned as being used by pop culture icons.

Pics from articles that the article references:

source: http://www.eonline.com/news/leann_rimes_girls_got_gun/317312#ixzz1vEmjLYIg

 

source: http://omg.yahoo.com/news/selena-gomez-shoots-gun-bulgaria-234352427.html;_ylt=ArhhxTtnqZOdegBoEodYD4B7pxx.;_ylu=X3oDMTFya242MHFpBG1pdANNb2QgQXJ0aWNsZSBCb2R5BHBvcwM0BHNlYwNNZWRpYUFydGljbGVCb2R5VGVtcEFzc2VtYmx5;_ylg=X3oDMTJuaDdyZDFpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZDVkMzY4NWMtZmIzOC0zZTUwLWI0ZmEtYTc3YTNjNTgxNWFlBHBzdGNhdANuZXdzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3



 

Here is a recent article in the "NY Times": New Fashion Wrinkle: Stylishly Hiding the Gun

The article actually isn't bad. For folks that didn't know about the Woolrich Elite tactical line of clothes it was probably informative. They make a great line of clothes!

What I found alarming were the comments. Clearly folks do not realize that *49* States in the Union allow CCW. While some of the states are new and a great strides were made in the 90s and 2000s it is not exactly new. In fact, my home state has issued CCW licenses since the 70s.

One thing is clear -- the folks that came up with CONCEALED carry knew what they were doing. It is really out of sight out of mind! People are quite often not aware that their own state already has and has had CCW laws. I am amazed at how many people I run into in my own state that simply don't know.

A lot of the comments are clearly from folks who are untrained, unfamiliar, and quite frankly afraid of firearms.

Let's look at some of the statements. Well, worded less offensively anyway:

1. "If you carry a gun you are looking for trouble..."
I have legally carried a firearm for 20 years, pretty much every day. I have had zero incidents.

Some might ask 'Why bother carrying a gun?'
There have been a few times that I was glad that I had that I had a firearm. I would rather have it, than not need it.

2. "People who carry guns have an inferiority complex..." (usually referring to one's man-hood)
I think they are trying to say that people have firearms to make themselves feel more manly and potray themselves as "tough." A kind of peacocking, I guess. But it is concealed carry, right? So, you will never know when done correctly. Usually I think this is just said as an insult. That's fine, I don't really care. If that's the best argument (and type of argument) that they can come up with, well, good luck with their future.

Not everyone that owns a gun, sports car, 4x4, pickup, motorcycle, big tv, boat, big house, fancy computer, or drum kit, etc. has E.D.

Some times a cigar is just a cigar.

3. "People who carry guns are paranoid. I can't live like that -- fearing every shadow."
OK. So don't carry a firearm then. But, what's funny is when these folks object to others carrying firearms. Why is that? Read on...

4.  "If you have a gun you are more likely to get angry and use it...It will
increase violence."
Hasn't happened yet, and besides -- look who's is being paranoid now? The assumption is that the licensed CCW holder can't control their temper. Why would you assume that? I think that a lot of these folks are projecting and it is probably a good thing that they don't carry a firearm.

If anything I find myself being much MORE conscious of actions/words to reduce the chance of being in an inflammatory situation.

That's right. You must steer clear of an altercation which could result in say a fist fight (and this is something I hear anti-gun people say: "what ever happened to just fist fighting?")

a person that is legally CCW'ing simply can NOT engage in that type of behavior or simply get 'into a fist fight.'

Think of the possible legal consequences of an armed person fighting with an unarmed person. I take this opportunity to recommend that every gun owner read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad  Ayoob.

 

5. "People with guns didn't stop....(insert random violent act here)"
Neither did the police. And isn't one of the anti-gun arguments that since police carry firearms I don't need one?

 

6. "You are more likely to have your gun taken away..."
Some of these studies say that you more likely to have your gun taken away and used against you than if you don't have a gun.

Think about it ... if you don't own a gun you are pretty unlikely to have it taken away and used against you!

Training folks is the key. If you do ever encounter an adversary, hopefully that foe is less trained than you.

I wish people who oppose firearms would take the time to actually learn about them or try one out in a controlled setting.

It is not the law abiding citizen that should be feared. It is the criminal, and they don't bother to get a license or bother with a Woolrich shirt for concealment.

 

UPDATE: I just found these "reviews"/criticism by Googling the  NYTimes article. I think that they objected most to the concept of gun owners trying to be "fashionable." Once again, its all about concealable-- If it wasn't for the NYT article they would still be clueless that the market even existed.

http://www.styleite.com/media/woolrich-gun-pants/#0

The features of the  styleite.com page?

http://fashionista.com/2012/04/concealed-carry-clothing-for-the-fashion-aware-gun-owner-is-on-the-rise/

And the fashionista.com featured article today?

  • Awkward Poses, Visible Nips, Marabou Slippers and More Awesomeness From the 1979 Victoria’s Secret Catalogue
  • Why Coco Rocha Is Pissed about Her Elle Brazil Cover
  • and their "Top Story" (their own words): "Has Victoria Beckham Dropped the 'Posh' Act Once and For All?"

Sorry - those article titles crack me up! I am pretty sure that these folks and their readers are NOT Woolrich's target audience. It is interesting that the the NYT article did generate a response from them, including one that actually posted pics of the Woolrich Pants.

So, don't be looking for 'S' & 'B' to be wearing them (ha! not the ammo company). More likely to be something 'A' would wear. (Bonus points if you  get both TV show references!)

 

 

Friday, 20 April 2012 14:00

Remington awarded Army M4 contract

Written by

Gear Scout's post: Breaking- US Army places order for 24,000 M4 Carbines with Remington

Seems that about Remington is getting ready to make U.S. Army M4s in their Ilion, NY facility. So, now they will be "milspec" and gain access to the infamous and much coveted Colt TDP.

Interesting!

Reuters: French gunman's arsenal spotlights illegal arms trade

Europe is often cited as a model for the way things should be and the United States is painted a maverick. Incidents like the France shooter are rare, but one thing is universal - criminals don't follow the law. That is why they are criminals. Placing additional restrictions on the law abiding doesn't curb crime.

From the article cited above:

Already tough French gun laws were tightened further earlier this month with the approval of longer jail terms and larger fines for anyone caught with an illegal firearm.

Amateur marksmen and game hunters must meet stringent criteria to obtain a gun licence including registering themselves with the authorities, proving they have no criminal record, and passing a psychological evaluation. There is also a blacklist of some 18,000 people banned from owning a gun.

The government says there are at least 7.5 million guns in legal circulation in the ownership of the state, amateur gun enthusiasts and hunters. Nobody knows how many illegal guns are in circulation, though experts put the total number of both legal and illegal guns at between 10 and 20 million in a nation of 65 million people.

Merah's frequent brushes with the law would have made it impossible for him to have legally acquired any of his weapons, gun experts say.

"There is no way he could have got these guns legally with his record," Jean-Jacques Buigne, president of the French union of amateur gun owners told Reuters. "It is out of the question."

Most of the guns he got hold of, such as the Uzi machine pistol, are in any case banned in France. The guns he used would have traced their origin back to World War Two, Eastern Europe or a more recent conflict in the Middle East, experts say.

 

The article finishes with:

"If you don't have a 'Kalash' you're a bit of a loser."

 

He is not talking about Americans or the United States. He is talking about Marseille.

This is a good article on "Surprising Anti-gun celebrities" from Guns & Ammo. I was surprised at a couple of them. Most of them are just hypocrites as they make money portraying characters that use firearms -- usually to save their lives. I guess it is ok for other people not to have firearms to protect themselves as long as you can still have your own personal armed security to protect you.

LINK TO G&A SURPRISING ANTI-GUN CELEBRITIES

Some people will say that these celebrities have the right to their own opinion. This is true. However, I have the right NOT to spend my hard-earned $ supporting them. And I can and will not support them based on their anti-gun views.

Some of them actually openly state they actually want to take YOUR guns away ("door to door")!  Not a penny of my $ to them.

 

 

This is a great editorial shedding truth on some arguments propagated by the anti-gun lobby --  the anti-gun rhetoric simply doesn't add up.

Forbes.com article: Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

Complete text follows:

"As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.

National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”

Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.

A record of more than 1.5 million background checks for customers looking to purchase a firearm were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system last December. About one-third of these occurred during the six weeks before Christmas. They had previously recorded a 49% rise in background checks during the week before President Obama was elected in 2008 compared with the same week one year earlier.

The Brady lobby is upset that there has been no progress in leveraging tighter gun control legislation following the shooting January 8, 2010 rampage that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. That tragic incident raised serious questions about background checks after it was determined that the accused shooter, having previously exhibited erratic behavior, legally purchased the weapon he “allegedly” used from a store.

The National Rifle Association clearly agrees that guns should not be sold to individuals found to have serious mental problems, although many states fail to provide mental health records to the federal computerized background check system. According to a November, 2011 report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), 23 states have shown “major failures” in complying, and four (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island) submit no records at all. (Although murder has been in decline in New York and other major cities for years, a Pepsi and Honda Super Bowl advertisement spot featured New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino on a couch calling for stricter government measures to curb illegal gun sales.)

Dennis Henigan, the Brady group’s acting president, told Reuters: “Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines.” Referring to a proposed “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011″ (H.R. 822) which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, the resolution would require states to recognize one another’s concealed carry permits the same way they recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. The intent is to eliminate confusion and potential legal problems for traveling gun owners.

As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.

A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

Most of the actual self-defense shootings in the Cato study didn’t involve concealed carry licenses, but more typically had to do with responses to residential invasions. Of these, 488 involved home burglaries. In addition, there were 1,227 incidents where intruders were induced to flee the scene by armed inhabitants, circumstances that might otherwise have resulted in injurious assaults including rapes and murders. There were 285 news accounts indicating that the defender had a concealed weapon license, which in the majority of these incidents took place outside a home or place of business. Pizza delivery drivers were common robbery targets.

Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.

Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Doesn’t this comparison offer some indication that criminals are getting the message? Don’t you wish those bent on eliminating our Second Amendment rights would also?"

Saturday, 11 February 2012 04:34

HR822: National 'Right to Carry' Reciprocity Act

Written by

Folks have been asking me about this legislation and its impact on CCW'ers. I think that there may be some misunderstanding on its current status. The following is what I recently posted in a thread from MP-pistol.com forum and I thought interesting enough to post here:

Question:

Hey guys I've been wondering about the concealed carry reciprocity act. If I have a concealed permit from AZ does CA.have to.accept it and what are the California carry laws I've read lots but would like to hear it firsthand from some Californians please and thanks ya

My answer:
Are you asking about HR822 The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act?
Well, it has passed the House but needs to pass Senate. If there are any differences it must then go to joint committee to have those differences resolved. Of course it must then be signed into law by the Presidnet, and even then how it is interpreted by each state (and in states without firearms preemption local jurisdictions interpretation) will have to be seen. How can it turn out? Look at the FOPA and LEOSA where some jurisdictions like NY DON'T honor the law at all.

So, in a nutshell, while a GREAT move your question is a LONG way from being able to be answered. However, the current version of the legislation is available here:
http://thomas.loc.go...12:H.R.822.EH:/

Usually Yahoo! News is filled with drivel, so Iwas  surprised today to read the headline:

‘The Debutante Hunters’ Wins the Yahoo!/Sundance 2012 Shorts Competition

LINK

I don't know much about it, but firearms or hunting portrayed by in a positive light (well, I hope so anyway - again I haven't seen it) is a pleasant surprise, especially from Sundance!

...a group of Southern belles who show their good old girl sides while hunting the backwoods, was culled from over 7,000 short films submitted to the festival...

After going on a hunt with her friend Kristy Olson Cuthbert, White knew she had her subject: "This was a world I wanted to explore, where a woman can be feminine, a mother, a daughter, and still be a total badass."

 

Now, that is truly avant garde!

Monday, 16 January 2012 16:02

WA HB1508 - Range Protection Bill needs our help!

Written by

 

This is an important issue. I personally know of (2) ranges that have been involved with litigation in an attempt to shut them down.

Washington Shooting Range Protection Bill Needs Your Help!
Friday, January 13, 2012

Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY!

Yesterday, House Bill 1508, a vital shooting range protection bill, introduced by state Representatives Dean Takko (D-19), Tim Probst (D-17), and Kevin Van De Wege (D-24), was heard in the House Judiciary Committee.  Due to the short legislative session, this bill needs to be voted on soon, if it is going to pass this year.

Shooting ranges are critical to competitive and recreational shooters, hunters, law enforcement, and for individuals who just want to practice for self-defense.  Shooting ranges should be both accessible and affordable for everyone.  However, expanding populations are encroaching on shooting ranges and threatening their existence.

Forty-eight states have recognized the importance of protecting shooting ranges and have passed similar legislation.  Hawaii and Washington are the only two states without a range protection law.  Furthermore, there are currently several shooting ranges in Washington that are facing legal battles and burdensome regulations, which if not addressed, could result in their closure.

House Bill 1508 is narrowly focused on noise issues and would do the following:

 

  1. ensure that existing ranges are protected against civil liability and criminal charges related to noise pollution (it would not tie the hands of local government to regulate future ranges, nor unsafe ranges); and
  2. benefit the public-at-large by providing gun owners with a safe place to shoot.

Please contact your state Representative today and respectfully urge him or her to support House Bill 1508.  You can reach your state Representative at the toll-free legislative hotline by dialing (800) 562-6000.  To determine who is your state Representative, please click here.

If your state Representative is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and his or her “Yes” vote will be instrumental in ensuring the passage of this bill.  Please call AND e-mail your state Representative TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to support HB 1508.  You can also leave your state Representative a short message on the toll-free, legislative hotline, by dialing (800) 562-6000.  Contact information for the House Judiciary Committee is also provided below:

Representative Jamie Pedersen, Chairman (D-43)
(360) 786-7826
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Roger E. Goodman, Vice Chairman (D-45)
(360) 786-7878
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Bruce Chandler (R-15)
(360) 786-7960
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Deborah H. Eddy (D-48)
(360) 786-7848
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Drew Hansen (D-23)
(360) 786-7842
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Steve Kirby (D-29)
(360) 786-7996
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Brad Klippert (R-8)
(360) 786-7882
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Terry Nealey (R-16)
(360) 786-7828
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Tina Orwall (D-33)
(360) 786-7834
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Ann Rivers (R-18)
(360) 786-7850
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Mary Helen Roberts (D-21)
(360) 786-7950
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Jay Rodne (R-5)
(360) 786-7852
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Representative Matt Shea (R-4)
(360) 786-7984
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Page 13 of 14