No More One Gun a Month - VA Gov. Bob McDonnell Signed It - Del. Scott Lingamfelter Put the Spin on It

Gov. Bob McDonnell


The Washington Post reports


Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William and sponsor of the repeal bill, said the one-handgun limit didn’t accomplish much for law enforcement.
“I think Virginians deserve effective laws, and one handgun a month has been overtaken by technology and improved background checks,” he said. “Criminals don’t go into gun stores, stand there in the bright light, hand over their driver’s license and stand there and wait for the vendor to see if they have a criminal record.”

You see, when you're a gun-rights advocate, you've got "right" on your side and you can say and do anything you like. In his lame justification of the new law, the Delegate is pretending that limiting purchases to one a month has something to do with criminals buying guns from FFL dealers.  Obviously this is not the case. What he said about criminals not standing in the light and handing over their documents has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What the law did was to limit the so-called law abiding citizens from buying more than one at a time.  Those people include criminals and traffickers who haven't been caught yet as well as straw purchasers who turn the guns they buy over to criminals immediately.  Other laws which conveniently interweave into this prohibit registration of guns and licensing of gun buyers, therefore those straw purchasers easily escape detection.

This is Virginia.  This is a backward state run by right-wing lunatics and populated by red-neck gun lovers, who, whether they're in the majority or not, are certainly more powerful and more influential than the liberal, progressive, intelligent and reasonable people of Virginia.

It's a sad story about a step backwards.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



Barbara Sheehan gets 5 Years for Gun Charge

The Times Union reports on the sentencing and her reaction.

I'm not sure if we came to a consensus last time we talked about this one, so just in case I didn't make myself clear that time, here's my take on it. She's going to jail for the wrong reason. The District Attorney said it right.

"Barbara was not the victim in this case," Assistant District Attorney Debra Pomodore said. "Raymond, her husband, was the victim."

I'm all for women's rights. I'm the one who keeps linking to my "guns are bad news for women" post. But in this case, what she did is no different than all the other cases we read about in which someone snaps and uses a gun.

Temporary insanity might have worked, but not the battered wife defense. That's my take on it. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

The Boston Herald reports on a very interesting incident. CCW permit holders are among the most responsible of gun owners. Everyone knows this. In The Bay State, presumably, they're even better screened and therefore safer than, say, in Arizona.

The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.

After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places?  Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is.  Negligence is not acceptable.  CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard.  When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb.  When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is the one strike you're out rule.  It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



More on the Gun Registration Issue gun rights,

The published a piece in support of abolishing the Canadian Long Gun Registry, too bad they can't tell the truth.

Wendy Cukier and the CGC are grasping at straws in a desperate measure to retain any or all of the long gun registry. These are public scare tactics filled with half truths and flat out lies.Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper. Sick people are sick, and require treatment. I’m sure $2 billion could have been better spent on mental health issues rather than harassing law-abiding citizens.

Did you catch that? Pretending that gun control folks actually believe gun registration will prevent people from going off the deep end by using such sarcastic language as this, is absolutely mendacious.

Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper.

Nobody thinks that. But, well aware of that fact, gun-rights extremists both north and south of the border say stuff like this and make serious arguments against it as if we actually believe it and have said it. We done and we haven't.

The benefits of gun registration have been clearly defined. They have nothing to do with preventing people from going on shooting rampages. They have everything to do with preventing guns from flowing into the criminal world. They will help the so-called law abiding gun owners to hold onto their guns and stop allowing them to reach criminal hands.

And guess what, it's been proven to work.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



The Gun Control History of the NRA

Adam Winkler writes for The Huffington post


The NRA was founded by William Church and George Wingate after the Civil War. Wingate and Church -- the latter a former reporter for a newspaper not exactly known for its love of gun rights, the New York Times -- both fought in the War on the Union side. They were shocked by the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers and convinced that one reason the Confederacy was able to hold out so long before surrender was because their soldiers had more experience shooting. Church and Wingate's goal for the NRA was to improve the marksmanship of civilians who might one day be called to serve in the military, not to fight gun control.

The author goes on to explain how for most of the 20th century the NRA was actually involved in drafting gun control ligislation.  And during those decades they had very little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

All that changed in 1977. That year, the leadership of the NRA decided to retreat from political lobbying and refocus on recreational shooting and outdoors activities. This sparked a backlash among a group of hardline gun rights advocates who were upset that the NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1930s. Motivated by the belief that guns weren't primarily for hunting but for personal protection in an era of rising crime rates, the hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership, ousting the old leaders and committing the organization to political advocacy.

Shortly after that they picked up La Pierre. And the world has seldom seen anything like it.

What's your opinion?  We've often spoken about the evolving interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but this article helps us see it from the perspective of the NRA.  Do you think that's helpful? Does the dynamic change in direction undertaken by the NRA lend credibility to the theory that the way we view the 2A has been bastardized over the last 5 decades?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



Busy Night in South Philadelphia - 6 Shootings reports

The mayhem began around 9 p.m. Police said a 22-year-old man was shot in the left thigh.
Six blocks away, a 16-year-old girl suffered a gunshot wound to her right leg.

At 12th and Carpenter streets, a 27-year-old man was shot once in the right arm, once in the buttocks and suffered a graze wound to his left arm.

In Point Breeze, a 23-year-old woman, 17-year-old boy and 6-year-old girl were all injured in a shooting outside at 18th and Tasker streets just after 9:30 p.m., police said. Both the woman and the teen were shot in the left foot and taken to Methodist Hospital in stable condition. The 6-year-old was shot twice in her left leg.

In all probability the guns used in these incidents, at least four guns, were manufactured somewhere in the United States and delivered to an authorized FFL (Federal Firearms License) gun dealer.  After that it's anyone's guess. Records are destroyed or simply lost, lawful owners sell their guns privately without ascertaining the qualifications of the buyer, guns are stolen because safe storage is not required. It's a mess.

The pro-gun crowd keep hollering for blaming the criminals, but what about when they themselves are the hidden criminals? What about when they turn a blind eye to the irresponsible behavior that aids the real criminals, the professionals?

No, I don't buy it.  Blame criminals for whatever they do wrong, yes, but let's put the responsibility where it belongs.  So-called legitimate gun owners are the source of criminal guns.  In one way or another that's where almost all the guns used in crime come from. It's called gun flow and the iron pipeline and it cannot be blamed on criminals.

What's your opinion? Don't you think it makes perfect sense that gun control laws should be aimed at the lawful gun owners since they are the source? Also, as the pro-gun crowd never tires of pointing out, criminals don't obey the laws anyway, so proper gun control needs to be focused on those who will obey.

Does that make sense?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



High Springs FL (near Jacksonville) Domestic Violence - Two Dead

The Gainesville Sun reports


Trenda Owens Hogg, 48, was shot and killed in her front yard Sunday afternoon, and her estranged husband, Russell Dewayne "Rusty" Hogg, 58, sat in jail that evening suspected of killing her as well as the couple's son, Anthony Wayne Hogg.
The rifle that investigators believe Hogg used was found on the property. While a motive for the shootings wasn't clear Sunday, Alachua County Sheriff's Office spokesman Art Forgey said an "ongoing domestic dispute is what led to this."
Forgey said High Springs police officers knew the Hoggs and had been to the family's house a number of times for domestic disputes.

Are domestic abusers in Florida allowed to have long guns? I realize a rifle or shotgun in the home is as American as apple pie, but shouldn't people like old Rusty be completely disarmed?

Is the pro-gun argument that rifles are rarely used in a crime part of the problem here? Is that what the local law enforcement thought the last several times they visited the Hoggs family?

In the famous Hemenway study of high gun states, Florida was not listed as one. In fact it comes way down the list below such gun-loving places as Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. But what the theory of "guns are bad news for women" shows is the more guns there are the more women get killed in domestic disputes.

Florida's been in the news a lot lately, not just with domestic situations, but with general gun violence.  Maybe their gun-violence star is ascending. It could mean another jewel in the crown.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



Galewood Tavern in Wyoming MI



Security is tight, no guns allowed, but the parking lot is another story.

The dead guy fired two shots into the air and was immediately cut down by two men with guns. The shooters took off. I wonder if they were CCW guys who acted hastily and recognizing their mistake decided to leave the scene.

Hopefully more will be determined on the surveillance video. One thing seems clear, there were too many gun in the wrong hands. Can we agree on that at least?

Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

It Was the Gun's Fault


L.A. Now reports on an incredible crime committed by Joseph Hyungmin Son, seven years before the 1997 movie "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery."

The fact is I don't blame the gun and I find it extremely tedious to be continually accused of that by the pro-gun folks.  In this brutal crime, for example, I actually feel the gun was superfluous.

What the story made me wonder was, would the victim have been able to save herself had she been armed too? I think not.

When sudden, random violence strikes, like in this case, a concealed weapon will rarely help. In spite of all the claims to the contrary, true DGUs are extremely rare.

The problem is the pro-gun folks use stories like this to push their agenda.  Convincing people that they need to protect themselves is a disservice to those they want to help and to society at large.

The proliferation of guns for personal protection is a bad deal because the chances of your gun being used to save your life are extremely low while the possibility of it being MISused in some way is greater. It's a bad decision, a fear-driven mistake, that's all.

The solution to the problem of violence is to take sensible precautions and not give into the fear.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Iraq and Afghanistan


The Register Guard of Eugene Oregon published an editorial, the type of which you can see in just about any newspaper. It caught my eye because it was brief, to the point and contained some basic stats which I found interesting.

For the first time since President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, an entire month has passed without a single U.S. soldier dying in a conflict that has claimed the lives of 4,474 American service members.
The U.S. military is preparing to pull the last troops out of Iraq by the end of the year in accordance with a 2008 security agreement between the two countries. But there is troubling talk in Washington and Baghdad of extending that deadline to have U.S. troops remain longer in Iraq.
While Iraq was becoming less lethal, 67 U.S. troops died last month in the Afghanistan war, making August the deadliest month for Americans in the longest-running war in U.S. history.
Obama should also continue — and expedite — the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, site of a nearly decade-long war in which this country has invested $1 trillion, 10 years of effort and the lives of 1,754 U.S. troops.

I'm tired of the BS from Washington about withdrawing troops which usually comes with the disclaimer that the date could be postponed. What do the guys on the ground in Iraq think? Are they of the opinion that we're doing something worthwhile there? Or are they cynical and angry?

I suppose it's a good sign, no it definitely is a good sign that no fatalities happened in Iraq last month. My sincere prayer is that it may continue like that and somehow the government will do the right thing by the end of this year.

Afghanistan is another story. What in the hell has been accomplished there at such a cost? Was it all about Bin Laden and the Taliban? I doubt it, but whatever else it is, some strategic balance of power in the region or whatever, I say that's enough. Let's get out of there.

Unfortunately, as the August deaths indicate, it's going in the opposite direction. What do those troops think? Is the idea that the U.S. is policing the world in order to make it safer something that sustains them? Bush and Bush supporters always said that, but do people still think that way?

The op-ed I linked to made the point that in order to heal the economy at home we need to stop spending so much on these wars. That may be true, but to me there's a more important reason, a more human reason to end these ill-fated endeavors. We have young Americans dying over there and I honestly cannot see for what.

As has been said many times in defense of pacifist and non-intervention arguments, the best way I can see to support the troops is to bring them home, every one. We can spend some of that money on VA hospitals and PTSS clinics. We can invest in education and vocational programs for these young volunteers.

This is how we can make America strong.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)



Advertise Blogads