More Guns, Less Crime

That’s the name of a best-selling book and a basic truth, as some people in England are discovering. The shootings in Mumbai should have stilled forever the voices of those who think defending ourselves requires that we disarm the populace. It should have destroyed forever the MYTH of “gun control.” But that won’t shut them up. They’re not smart enough. Anybody who really thinks disarming ourselves is the way to self defense is an idiot (and that includes politicians). That’s why a think tank in England is mulling the idea that “if each of us carried a gun…” They’re taking note of the fact that every gun used in the Mumbai massacre was a “prohibited weapon” under Indian law, yet the gunmen had no trouble getting them. So where did they get them? The black market, of course. Those “gun control laws” guaranteed they would not be met with real resistance, as usual. No massacre in history ever happened where mere mortals (not cops or “government agents”) find it easy to be able to carry concealed guns (as in Florida, whose violent crime has gone down since they made it easier to carry a gun). When violent criminals can’t be sure people aren’t “carrying,” they’ll soon go into a less violent kind of crime. That’s what I’ve been preaching for years, but nobody has been listening. (Times Online)

UN Goes Ahead on Gun Control Measure

People who believe self defense involves DISARMING ourselves are idiots. They’re stupid. But that doesn’t slow down the United Nations, which thinks of itself as a “world government,” although it is NO kind of a government, and hopefully will not be one in my lifetime (admittedly short). What the hell makes them think that disarming the populace is the way to self-defense? That way lies idiocy! But you can never “shut up” the anti-gun idiots. They think they know more than the rest of us, although it’s painfully obvious to intelligent people they’re not. When are they going to “wise up?” Never, if I know the anti-gun jerks. (WTOP News)

Ireland to Ban the Glock

The Glock is the gangster’s favorite gun, so Ireland is going to ban it. Completely. Does anybody really think that will reduce the number of Glocks used in crimes in Ireland? I don’t. I think the number of Glocks in Ireland will INCREASE, as do all things banned. Remember prohibition in the U. S.? Booze in this country didn’t “disappear,” as those pushing prohibition predicted; it INCREASED exponentially. People were making booze in their BATHTUBS. Criminals will, as usual, have no problem getting Glocks in Ireland, or any other kind of gun, actually. And they will make a lot more money doing it. When you ban something, you create a black market and even more of that item is sold than ever before. Politicians (everywhere) never learn that. What idiots they are! (Herald.ie)

Finally Gave Their Guns Back

New Orleans finally gave back the guns they stole under the cover of "cleaning up" after the hurricane. But they didn't do it on their own. They fought "tooth and nail" for THREE YEARS when the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association sued them. They shouldn't have had to file this suit in the first place, to force New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to follow the Constitution and allow his citizens to defend themselves against the ILLEGALLY armed criminals who don't OBEY laws. The "anti-gunners," including Nagin, are doing everything in their power to DISARM honest Americans and make of them "easy targets" for criminals. What makes them think a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, will not be armed if they make a law against it, I don't know. All I know is, like the Chinese and Japanese in history, we must find a way to "get around" their asinine anti-gun laws. The Orientals came up with "unarmed combat." The government couldn't stop them from having their arms, legs, feet, and other effective weapons. Can we find as effective a counter for the laws our liberals make to keep us disarmed and "easy pickins" for criminals (some of whom even wear badges)? (Common Sense)

Guns in Church?

Two people are dead as a result of a man coming into the St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church. In New Jersey, where guns are not allowed, and killing his estranged wife and a parishioner. In Colorado Springs, a man came in and started killing people in a church protected by a part-time security guard who was also a parishioner, who shot him, stopping his rampage. In a Scientology Church, a man came in with a sword and tried to kill some people, but was shot to death by a security guard. Anti-gun freaks say there should not be guns in church. But how many people have been killed in churches by people who don't obey rules, nor laws? I think concealed guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE, so people can defend themselves against such people. The "anti=gun freaks" say that will make America a "wild-west" society where people "settle scores" with guns at the slightest provocation. What a LOAD! Back when everybody DID carry a gun, gunfights were rare, and it was a "polite society." Today, when people carrying guns are rare, we have more shootings per square inch than ever before because people who want to shoot someone don't care about how many laws they break while the people they want to shoot, do. What makes politicians think a CRIMINAL, who does not OBEY laws, will obey one that says he can't be armed, I don't know. Only honest people do, and we don't have to worry about them. (Associated Press)

More Guns Needed

In New Zealand, "dairies" (their equivalent of a convenience store") are arming themselves because of a recent increase of violent crimes against them. They call the job of clerk in their stores as "one of the most dangerous jobs out there." Some keep baseball bats, cricket bats, knives and other weapons short of a gun because of the tight gun laws that do nothing toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (who don't obey laws) but DO keep guns out of the hands of most honest people--those who really NEED them. But some are actually putting guns under their counters in defiance of the law because "it's better to be judged by 12 instead of carried by six." I agree. If I had such a job, I would DEFINITELY have a gun close to hand, law or no law. (New Zealand Herald)

School Shooting in Finland

"KAUHAJOKI, Finland - A masked gunman whose violent YouTube postings prompted police to question him a day ago opened fire Tuesday at his trade school in western Finland, killing ten people before shooting himself in the head." Who was it that said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?" After this shooting, Finnish "authorities" say they need MORE gun control. They already have some of the most restrictive "gun control laws" in the world. How is making more going to stop this kind of thing? Especially since the gun this guy used was LICENSED and had to be left in his home after they questioned him yesterday following some "disturbing" YouTube postings he made? Last November, a gunman killed eight people in a school, igniting a lot of talk about "gun control," though the law didn't get changed significantly. This is yet more evidence that customary "gun control laws" do NOT work. Again I say: if there had been ONE person in that school with a legal gun and the will to use it (maybe that janitor), maybe the death toll would be smaller, as it was in the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a female part-time security guard (actually, a parishioner attending the church, but who had been asked to bring her gun) with a licensed gun shot the shooter, stopping his "killing spree. But who is listening? Nobody, apparently. (Yahoo News)

Are Guns A "Good Thing?"

They are if they're in the hands of honest people. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, so why make it easier for them to terrorize honest people by keeping those "honest people" from having the means to self-defense? John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime" notes: " . . where guns are banned, crime increases." The USA is often criticized for having widespread gun ownership, but Lott states that "the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime." This is unarguable. But the gun-control freaks continue to "make noise" about "dangerous guns." Guns are NOT "dangerous." CRIMINALS with guns ARE "dangerous" and they'd be less so if honest people were allowed the right to own guns, as "guaranteed" by the U. S. Constitution. The bureaucrats and politicians get around this and get away with effective gun bans by saying, "Sure, the Constitution allows Americans to own guns. But that doesn't stop the need for reasonable restrictions." What is a "reasonable restriction?" That is subjective and is usually "defined" by those politicians and bureaucrats to suit themselves. And by the time honest people can successfully contest it, criminals have already killed them with their ILLEGAL guns, which HAVE no such "restrictions." One of the stupidest "reasonable restrictions" is the trigger lock. There's no point in having a gun around for self-defense if you have to fumble with a gun lock while the criminal is already armed with a gun unfettered by such a silly thing as a trigger lock. Sometimes I think the "anti-gun freaks" want to kill everybody who wants to own a gun for self-defense. I think every person who wants a gun should be allowed unfettered access to them; even criminals. They're going to get them anyway, so why shouldn't their intended VICTIMS be able to defend themselves? (The Progress Report)

Tough Old Guy

I just watched a video of an attempted robbery of an elderly man in a convenience store. When the thief tried to take a bunch of twenties sticking out of the old man's pocket, the old man, who is an ex-marine, a former steelworker, and a former Golden Gloves boxer, commenced "beating the hell" out of the "bad guy." With the help of a store clerk, he restrained the thief until the cops came. He proved that robbing elderly citizens isn't always a "piece of cake," but is sometimes a bad idea. He spent six months in jail after he got out of the hospital. In another video, a man tried to rob an old woman in a convenience store with a sawed-off shotgun. She grabbed the barrel and ran this cowardly criminal off, proving that most criminals aren't very tough, even WITH their guns. Another video showed an old man who jumped an armed robber because this robber aimed his gun at his daughter. They finally ran the criminal off, firing many shots in his direction. Don't count those "oldsters" out. You might get hurt. ("Most Outrageous")

In the Stomach, Huh?

A would-be robber burst into a Texas home and shot himself to death while trying to pull his gun out of the front of his pants. I suspect the newspaper was being "careful" when they described him as "shooting himself in the stomach." Pulling a gun out of the front of his pants would usually result in him shooting himself elsewhere, more likely. Shooting himself in the stomach, while not impossible, would be unlikely in this situation. But that's okay. We don't need to know what he blew off. He won't need it. He's dead. Criminals have been getting dumber and dumber lately. They've even got a weekly television show devoted to "dumb criminals." That takes a lot of stories. (Dallas News)

Subtle "Anti-Gun Propaganda"

I've been reading some old "Li'l Abner strips on the Internet and Capp did something I wouldn't expect of him. After a series where "the Scraggs" wanted to continue an old feud and kill all remaining Yocums , causing "Mammy" and "Li'l Abner to kick the heck out of them and get them to promise to go away and never return, Abner asked Mammy if she was really going to shoot them. She replied: "Of course not. Only fools use guns. Smaht folks uses brains and sometimes a smack in the nose helps." Apparently, he doesn't realize that this statement is self-contradictory. A "smack in the nose" is just a lesser form of the violence represented by guns," and the THREAT of their use. Without this lesser violence being successful, resort to actual use of guns would be necessary to stop the violence the Scraggs were bringing to them. That is the REAL lesson to be gained from this strip. (Li'l Abner)

Wimping Out to Muhammed

"McDonald's latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers. The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales. However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered (facing East) and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran. McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores." Why have they never offered food that would appeal to their Jewish customers? I have yet to see MacDonald's come out with Kosher foods, and probably won't, in my lifetime -- unless they decide to "wimp out" to both sides. Even so, my question is WHY do they think it's a good thing to "wimp out" to our enemies, rather than out friends? (News Busters)

"Vietnam Prosperous Because We Left"?

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is locked in a "fanciful" version of history. Like most elite liberals, he thinks Viet Nam is now "prosperous" because we left. Never mind all the South Vietnamese bloody bodies that were left in the wake of our leaving. He also says Bush "let" two "war heroes" be "swift-boated," (like Bush could stop it) one of them being John Kerry, who spent only about two months over there trying very hard to get a purple heart any way he could. If "swift-boated" means "told the truth about," that's true. But that's not what he means. He also denies that Iraq is a key piece of the puzzle in the war on terrorism. He even denies the very EXISTENCE of a "war on terrorism." That should tell you a lot about his intelligence -- or lack thereof. (News Busters)

Sardineville

The liberals seem bent on gathering us all together in small groups that are more easily killed by Islamic terrorists. They want to put us all in "high-density housing" that can be easily hit with a bomb and kill a maximum number of "lemmings" who don't know any better that to live so close together. They want us to sell our cars and start using mass transit. They SAY it is easy, quick, and convenient. It is NONE of these things. It is difficult, slow, and INconvenient. So why do we "buy into" their schemes? Because they jeer at us if we don't. Many people respond to that. I don't. I live in a HOUSE. I drive my own car. I haven't been on a bus or train in 20 years, and don't plan to do so soon. I do not fly unless absolutely necessary. Usually, I drive. If some get through and start blowing innocent people up in shopping centers and pizza parlors like they do in Iraq or Israel, I won't be among the victims because I'll be somewhere else. They say "there are no innocent Infidels." And they expect us to adhere to a strict "hands off" policy on Muslims. Sheesh! (Just common sense)

Gunman KIlled Robbing Store

And his girlfriend wants the storeowner who killed him "punished" for "shooting him too many times." What the hell? My thinking is simple: if you go out to violently rob someone, you shouldn't be surprised if you meet a violent end, and the person who "violently ends" you is NOT in line to be punished, under any circumstances. "Shot him too many times?" Hell, in his position I'd have "emptied my gun" into him, too. Many years ago a man tried to rob me with a knife. He made the mistake of taking his eyes off me long enough to look for the door handle (I was driving a cab) and I "brained him" with an old Radio Shack five-cell plastic flashlight. He didn't wake up for three months and never spent a minute in jail because he was, from that point on, "not right" (not that he was so intelligent before he robbed me, either). A cop asked my why I hit him so many times, and I responded, "I've never hit anybody in the head before. I was scared, and I kept hitting him until he stopped moving." I suspect the same is true of this storeowner. He kept shooting until the guy stopped moving. In any case, he was trying to stay alive himself, and shouldn't even spend a night in jail because of it. That's MY take. But liberals want to punish ANYBODY who uses a gun in self-defense, while "protecting" the criminal who forced it to happen Sheesh! Boortz's last sentence makes me wonder. If not McCain, whom? Does he think Obama will make the "gun thing" better? Sheesh, again! (Neal Boortz)

"Suicide More Probable if You Have A Gun?"

That's what the "anti-gun freaks" are trying to convince you of now. As usual, they're "blaming the gun," not the person. The illogic of this is so obvious I shouldn't even have to mention it. But they don't realize it and think you don't, either. "Anyone who acquires a firearm, we are told, is inviting a bloody death by suicide. So says Matthew Miller, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years,” he told The Washington Post." If you have any amount of intelligence, you know that if someone wants to commit suicide and DOESN'T own a gun, he/she will. He/she will find a way. But this "anti-gun frwak" doesn't think so. He thinks just the presence of a gun in your house makes you WANT to commit suicide. This crap falls into the category of "you're more likely to shoot YOURSELF than a criminal if you have a gun." It completely disallows competence in handling a gun on the part of the innocent citizen, while imputing that competence into a criminal. I've owned guns, and have never even CONSIDERED suicide. (Atlasphere)

"Shoot Down" Gun Control

It's interesting to note that the politicians who make these "gun control" laws that DISARM honest people and do nothing to disarm criminals, who never have any problems getting their guns either go around armed themselves ("gotta protect ourselves, don'tcha know?") or are surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards who are paid by whom? You and I, that's whom! Others get their politician "friends" to have them "deputized" so they can "carry (They do no law enforcement, it's just a scam so they can "carry.")." But if you and I are caught "carrying," guess what happens? They put us in jail and make felons out of us, so they can forever deny us the right to carry guns for self-defense. What's wrong with this picture? It's time we made politicians aware that we will no longer stand for their "reasonable" rules that keep us disarmed while they have their ways of "getting around the law" and being legally armed. (Common Sense)

Clerk "Beats Up" Robber

I just saw a video on Fox News (yesterday) where a robber came in to rob a place, starting off by hitting the clerk in the mouth. Many criminals rely on intimidation, and many have no weapons at all. This guy picked the wrong clerk to attack because the clerk "put him down" in short order. He didn't use any kind of a weapon but his fists, just proving arrogant criminals aren't always "the big guys" when they try and rob people. This should be a message for criminals. If you don't go out to rob people, you won't run into people like this guy. (Just common sense)

Open "Packing"

Did you know that in most states you can carry a gun without any kind of a license as long as it is openly carried? Although you will be accosted by police officers who will try and intimidate you, and irrational citizens who are just "afraid of guns," if you stand your ground and carry a copy of the law that allows it, there's nothing they can do. Private property owners, however, have the right, however irrational, to ban guns on their property (such as "Blockbuster." Who does.). The Los Angeles Time had a story about it recently. Below is my answer: " I think there are way too many people out there who are irrational about guns. It is not "guns" that hurt people; it is the people who USE them wrongly that hurt people. I have a blog called, "The Unarmed Citizen" on Blogspot to talk about such things and discuss other means of self defense WITHOUT the guns our government will not allow us to have and use for self-defense. Their idea is that self-defense is best accomplished by DISarming ourselves and allowing the illegally armed criminals to have a steady stream of unarmed victims." One question "anti-gun zealots" will not (cannot) answer is this: Do "anti-gun laws" reduce violent crime where they exist?" The answer is no. But they'll never admit it, so they just call me names (such as "gun-lover") to avoid answering it. Do "looser" gun laws reduce violent crime? Yes. But that's another one they will not, cannot answer. I was even accosted once by a cop who suggested that the metal flashlight in my pocket could be considered a weapon. I laughed and said, "Sure, if I ever use it to attack someone. We can discuss it then. He laughed and turned away. Fortunately, he wasn't serious and I remained friendly. (Los Angeles Times)

Control CRIMINALS, Not Guns!

Professor Walher E. Williams asks an intelligent question: "The people who murdered Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski were violent convicts released on parole. So what is responsible for his death: guns, or a criminal justice system that cuts soft deals for such criminals?" Unfortunately, this is not a question people who "hate guns" will ever ponder. They think if they can "get guns out of existence (a "fantasy dream"), violence will disappear. It won't. It existed long before guns were invented, and people would STILL find ways to kill each other if guns simply "disappeared" (which isn't going to happen, and is a little like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube) I have another question I always ask "anti-gun nuts," but which they never seem to be able to answer. They just start "calling me names" without attempting to answer it. It is, "Why would a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is dedicated to breaking the law, OBEY a law that says he can't be armed while committing other crimes?" I asked that question a few years ago of Andrew Hudson, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's "press flack," and instead of even attempting to answer it, he accused me of "sending spam." Apparently, he can't tell the difference between spam and a personal e-mail. Another irrational thing "anti-gun nuts" do is create "no-gun-zones," such as Virginia Tech (where a crazy man killed 23 people with a gun that was "illegal" on campus) and other schools such as Columbine, where an armed man killed 13 people. Then there's the restaurant in Texas where a woman who had a license to carry had to disarm herself before entering and had to watch while a crazy gunman killed a bunch of people, including her parents, who were eating with her. What kind of stupid people ARE these "anti-gun zealots?" Guns are not what should be banned. Judges who "slap violent criminals on the hand" are what should be banned. (Walter E. Williams)