David Codrea: Ohio AG DeWine washes hands of responsibility to address ‘double tapping’ cops

The office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has responded to Gun Rights Examiner’s concerns that police comments about “double tapping” open carriers show a dangerous disregard for state law, and unsurprisingly, has decided to do nothing about it other than have a proxy deny responsibility and punt the ball to state representatives.

“Dear David,” the presumptuous salutation to a mere citizen in a response letter (conversely signed “Very respectfully yours”) by Constituent Liaison S. Morgen begins.

“Thank you for contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office regarding your belief that many police forces around the state are not properly trained with respect to open carry provisions,” it begins. “In reviewing your communication, it is my understanding that you believe that many law enforcement officers misunderstand open carry and how to handle constituents who are exercising their legal rights.”

If by “understanding” S. (I assume the familiarity means we’re on a first-initial basis now?) means I forwarded documented accounts of police in years past illegally harassing, bullying, drawing guns on and endangering the lives of citizens who weren’t breaking any laws, and of current police officers contemptuously “joking” about “double tapping” citizens openly carrying firearms, why, yes, one could say I “believe” that. Why Mike and S. don’t after being shown, complete with validating links and screen captures, and after further being informed that evidence was erased after it was revealed they had been sent to the state’s chief law enforcement officer, is on them to explain.

More here at Gun Rights Examiner

Gun Control is Marketed as Something for Nothing

The vast majority of those who support more infringements on the Second Amendment do so from ignorance.    Those who actively push for a disarmed public are offering people who do not own guns a variation on the theme of something for nothing.   It goes like this:  Let us take something from *them* (people who value the second amendment) and we will make *you* safer.   The best part of this deal: it costs you *nothing*!   It is another form of spending other peoples money.

I remember an old joke to this effect from the Vietnam war.   It said the definition of a communist was "someone  who had nothing, and wanted to share it with you".

This is why those who want a disarmed population push so hard to convince people that you do not "need" this firearm or that firearm or this magazine or those bullets, and that firearms are useless for defense against anything or anyone, but absolutely effective killing machines against innocents.

The way to counter this stratagem is by education.   Once people see how useful weapons have been to others, they understand that they might be useful to them, even if it is sometime in the future. 

They can learn that weapons have been highly valued throughout history, and that those without weapons are very often the victims of those who have them, especially victims of government forces.  They can learn that weapons are primarily used for deterrence rather than for killing.

Concrete examples of defensive gun uses go a long way toward fostering that understanding.    At Gun Watch we have been doing our part in spreading the stories of defense of self and others that the old media routinely spike.

The greatest threat to peoples lives over the last hundred years has not been arms in the hands of private persons, but arms in the hands of state actors. The worst offenders have been those that call themselves socialists of one kind or another, such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Here is a university site in Hawaii that tracks such information:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

The information there offers powerful evidence of the necessity of limiting State power.   Virtually all victims of democide were first disarmed by the State before they were killed.

JPFO has a chart of the correlations of these killings and gun control.  It can be seen at the link.

Link to The Genocide Chart

The other side of the equation is worth noting.  People who do not wish to be armed can understand that disarming those who are already armed will not be free, and it is likely to cost more than mere money.

If they read the comments section of articles pushing for more infringements on the second amendment, if they talk to the co-worker who values his rights, if they see armed marchers risk being arrested to stand up for their rights as free people, it shows them that disarming those people comes with a cost.   That is directly opposite of the message that those who wish for a disarmed public are pushing.  There are far fewer takers for things that cost something compared to things that are claimed to be free.

In a recent New York Times blog, the writer, to his credit, understood that the open carry of firearms was protected political speech.   He simply misunderstood the message.   He wrote this:

The commitment to civil disagreement is merely provisional: I feel so strongly about this issue, the gun says, that if I don’t get my way, I am willing to kill for it.

He is partly correct, but he ignores the context.  The underlying context is: I will use force to protect rights that may not be legitimately taken.  It is the simple statement that government power is, and must be, limited.

It is people who believe that they can win without significant cost (or at least with a net benefit) to themselves who start  wars.   Only a very small segment of American society is willing to pay the costs of disarming their neighbors.   Only a very small segment sees any benefit to that action, when educated. 

The education is working.   After each attempt at incremental disarmament over the last  50 years, the numbers of those opposing more infringements have increased.   Before the recent propaganda push, the number was 54% ("kept  as now" plus "less strict".  The chart below only goes as far as 2013.

The numbers for January, 2014 have been published for a similar, though slightly different, question. I believe it signals what we will see in the "sale of firearms" question in six months:

 That gives a total of "kept the same" of 48%, "less strict" of 16%.   "kept the same" and "less strict" show a total of 64%, similar to what they were before the recent push.   "More strict" is only 31% after recovering from the Obama and old media push after Newtown.   "More strict" could easily fall to the 25% number of January 2012, or lower.

People are becoming educated.   When they do, they come down on the side of the right to bear arms.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX: Twelve-year-old Boy Ignites .22 Cartridge with Cigarette Lighter

In the story out of Texas, the boy's mother drives him to the hospital.  The deputy interviewing the young man found out how he was injured.  From thevindicator.com:

Deputy Hobson stated that upon interviewing the young man as to how he got injured from the bullet, the young boy told Dep. Hobson that he had held a cigarette lighter under a .22 caliber bullet to see what would happen. The bullet exploded sending bullet fragments through his left middle finger and lodging in the left eye lid.

There are a couple of lessons here.   The first is not to try to set off cartridges outside of a firearm in close proximity to your flesh.   A .22 does not have a lot of gunpowder in it, but it is enough to cause minor injuries if it is in contact with flesh when it goes off.  If you are more than five feet away from it when it happens, presuming that it is not contained in the chamber of a firearm, your risk is minimal.   Surprisingly, the tiny .22 rimfire seems to entail a bit more risk than centerfire cartridges.   The case is very thin and light, and is more likely to rupture or develop enough velocity to be dangerous.

While we do not know exactly what happened, a .22 case and bullet, being made of metal, transmit heat very effectively.  I suspect that the boy was using something to hold the cartridge to avoid being burned.  Even a pair of pliers or a a few wraps of tape might have been enough to provide some support for the case and make the resulting ignition more dangerous.  I have heard of people who put the .22 cartridge in a vice and hit the base with a hammer.  That is a dangerous procedure.

In another article on fires and ammunition, a source on an Internet forum reported that he had experience of a fragment that barely punctured the skin at a range of less than five feet from a .22 rimfire case that was ignited in a fire.  He concluded that any other cases were too sturdy to fragment.  Here is a Link to the SAAMI paper, "Facts About Sporting Ammunition Fires".

40 or more years ago a fellow told me he touched a match to some homemade gunpowder to see if it would go off.   He lost his eyebrows and burned his hand a bit, but suffered no permanent injury.    Young males are adventurous, curious, and willing to take risks.   We can guide them and attempt to channel that energy; but suppressing it can result in more harm than good.  An amusing web site could result from the theme: Silly risks I took as a boy/young man.

As the "fragment" in question (almost certainly from the case and not the bullet) lodged in the boy's eyelid, it seems likely that the eye itself is not at risk.

Eyes are the most vulnerable parts of the body to these sorts of projectiles, which is why safety/shooting glasses of some kind has become a regular part of most shooters' gear.  

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Russia not an "Advanced or Developed" Country, by Barack Obama's Measure

Chart from Crime Prevention Research Center

 Barack Obama made the following statement about "gun violence". 

‘There’s no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this’, he said. ‘This is becoming the norm and we take it for granted in ways that, as a parent, are terrifying to me… If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change.’

"Gun violence" is a propaganda term.  It emphasises violence committed with guns as somehow worse and less appropriate than violence committed with bombs or axes or nerve gas or machetes.   This is done to push for political actions that would otherwise not be defensible or acceptable.

Let us put that aside, and assume that Barack Obama really meant that "there is no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this" (meaning the level of unjustified violence in the United States).   For the sake of simplification, I will assume that he means unjustified homicides.

What countries does this put outside of Barack Obama's definition of "advanced, developed countries"?   Clearly, it means any countries that have a higher level of unjustified homicides than the United States, because in his definition, the United States is higher than any other "advanced, developed country".

These would include Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Brazil, Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Chile, as examples.

Rather interesting that Russia is not considered "advanced" or "developed" by Barack Obama.

The article that the chart was taken from at the Crime Prevention Research Center, has a much more sophisticated analysis of the "advanced and developed" scam.   It is just another way to cherry pick data to arrive at predetermined conclusions.

We could as easily make up another category, such as "New World Counties" or "Large, multi-ethnic countries",   both of which would show that the U.S. does rather well in comparison to the others.  The United States is much closer to Russia in its scope and diversity than it is to Finland.  International comparisons are quite complex; simplistic comparisons mislead more than inform.

It is culture that is the predominant factor in homicide rates, not the availability of a certain weapon type.   If the culture trusts the justice system and believes that the rule of law will prevail, homicide rates drop like a rock.  In the United States there are significant subgroups that do not trust the rule of law, and that is where most of the homicide occurs.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

WA: How Crime Labs Trace Cartridge Cases

SEATTLE – Every shell casing found at a crime scene can be a crucial piece of evidence for detectives working to match a bullet to a gun. Caleb Conn works at the Washington State Crime Lab in Seattle and says, “This is what an unfired cartridge would look like. When you fire it, the bullet will go out, go downrange, whatever you’re aiming at. What’s left is the fired cartridge case. A lot of people refer to this as the brass or the shell casings.”

More Here

TN: Unwarranted attack on permitless open carry

He may be surprised, then, to learn that every county of every state bordering Tennessee, except Georgia already has permitless open carry. Can he point to crime statistics that would support his assertion? In Kentucky alone, that would add up to 43,800 gunfights last year.

More Here

VT: Rutland clerk pulls gun on robber

“I looked up when I heard the doorbell chimes and saw the hoodie, the bandana, and a bag in his hand,” Pitaniello said Monday. “He walked up to the counter, laid the knife on it and said ‘Empty the register.’”

But the Vietnam veteran, who said he has carried a gun all his life, said he had his .380-caliber handgun in his grasp and behind his back before the unidentified intruder made it to the counter.

More here

It’s anti-gun hysteria that’s off the charts

The article takes a while to get there, but delivers interesting data at the end:

Are there no trustworthy statistics for parents – or Obama – to examine? Well, as luck would have it, not too far away from the Whitehouse, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published a report this month entitled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013. In case it got lost in Obama’s inbox, so here it is again. Rather usefully, the report includes a chart germane to this very issue:

 More Here

The truth about Australia's gun control experiment

Australians pride themselves on 'telling it like it is', but when it comes to gun laws, straight-shooting often takes a back seat to a determined effort at silencing debate.

In 1996, Australia passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the western world. They included bans on self-loading rifles and self-loading and pump-action shotguns, universal gun registration and a taxpayer funded gun confiscation program costing over half a billion dollars. The ongoing costs of running the firearms registration systems are unknown but have been estimated at around $28 million per year, or $75,000 per day. That's more than what the average Australian earns in a year.

More Here

CO: Governor Hickenlooper Digs in Deeper with Gun Comments

DENVER — No doubt Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper had hoped the uproar over the gun-control legislation he signed last year would have blown over by now, but he’s since learned that’s not the case.

The governor set off a fresh round of outrage at a recent forum in Aspen with county sheriffs who sued over the legislation, first by apologizing for failing to meet with them during the debate, and then by insisting he never spoke to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg about the bills.

Unfortunately for Hickenlooper, Complete Colorado ran a story after the Friday forum that included photos of phone logs obtained through an open-records request showing two incoming calls from Bloomberg on March 2, at the height of the legislature’s gun-control battle.

More Here

Freakonomics and "buybacks"

While doing some research on the academic findings on the futility of gun "buybacks", I found this statement from the "Freakonomics" web site:

When it comes to gun buybacks, both the theory and the data could not be clearer in showing that they don’t work. The only guns that get turned in are ones that people put little value on anyway. There is no impact on crime. On the positive side, the “cash for clunkers” program is more attractive than the gun buyback program because, as long as they are being driven, old cars pollute, whereas old guns just sit there.

This is from 2009.   It is not particularly unusual; academic studies are in agreement that gun "buybacks" do not reduce crime, and that police resources used for them could be better spent elsewhere.

But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don't work.

A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

It is ironic that the quote above equates buying "new guns" with harm.  It reinforces my theory that the only significant effect of the gun "buybacks" is "to send a message", that is, for political propaganda.   The message is clear: guns are bad and should be turned in to the police.   The very term "buyback" is a propaganda term.   The guns were never owned by the people doing the buying, so they cannot be "bought back".   The term implies that all guns are only legitimately owned by the government.   The theory does a good job of explaining why proponents of gun "buybacks" become so incensed when it is suggested that the guns be sold to responsible individuals, whether licensed dealers or individuals that undergo background checks, and the proceeds used for charity or public benefit.

At first glance, selling the guns would appear to reinforce what those promoting the "buybacks" want - government oversight of those who purchase guns.  But they do not see it that way.   Proponents of the gun "buybacks" make statements such as:

Gun buy-back programs may become illegal

A bill that would do away with gun buy-back programs in Indiana will now go before the Indiana Senate for a vote. 

But the proposal, as indicated in this previous article, does nothing of the sort.  It does not prevent cities from  holding gun "buybacks", it would have prevented them from indiscriminately destroying the guns that they bring in.   In the minds of the proponents, a "buyback" must result in the destruction of the guns, a purely symbolic act, that "sends a message".

Selling the guns sends a different message: guns are valuable resources that many people find useful.

"Buybacks", which I prefer to describe as "turn in events" are on the decline.   Much of the reason for this decline is the increase in private buyers that show up at these events, money in hand, asserting their rights, and spoiling the message of "guns are bad and should be turned in to the police".   The only places where "buybacks" are flourishing are those states that have effectively banned private sales of firearms, such as New Jersey and California.

Even those promoting a disarmed population are distancing themselves from "buybacks".   This email message was unearthed in a freedom of information request in Washington State:

 “I wish you guys would … have talked to us/CeaseFire about this before moving forward,” Fascitelli said in an email to King County Executive Dow Constantine and a Mayor’s Office staffer. “The overwhelming research shows that buybacks generally don’t work well and are a waste of resources and are mocked by the NRA.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Dave Workman: SCOTUS ruling: Does Kagan opinion smack of gun registration?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that gun buyers must make it clear on their federal Form 4473 if they will keep the firearm or subsequently sell it, and a remark in the majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan is sure to raise eyebrows among gun rights activists who worry about de facto registration.
The ruling, which may be read here, already has one well-known Second Amendment scholar and legal expert concerned about "legislating from the bench," and he is saying so. Whether the ruling sends a signal that there has been a slight philosophical shift on the high court is another matter.
UPDATE: Debate on the ruling is focused on what constitutes a “straw purchase.”

The case involves a former police officer, Bruce Abramski, Jr., who bought a pistol so he could in turn sell it to his uncle, which was done through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Both men could legally own the firearm in question, a Glock semi-auto. Abramski, of Virginia, was convicted of making a straw purchase, despite his argument that, “So long as the person at the counter is eligible to own a gun, the sale to him is legal under the statute.”

More Here

Kurt Hoffman: Civilian Disarmament Advocate hopes to Promote Police Shooting Open Carriers

Mike Malloy, a radio personality from Atlanta, Georgia, describes himself as "a traditional Liberal Democrat doing his part to return the Democratic Party to its Liberal roots." As such, although evidently a gun owner himself, he is apparently enthusiastically on board with nearly every new infringement on that which shall not be infringed ever proposed, and goes into foot-stomping fury at every proposed expansion of recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.
That means, of course, that there is no vitriol too foul, to his way of thinking, to fling at groups like Open Carry Texas, for their campaign of openly carrying rifles and shotguns into places like restaurants and retail stores (although he may not have made the comparison between such activists and child rapist/murderers--yet). Of rather greater concern than the vitriol, though, is Malloy's stated intention to try to get open carry activists shot and killed. Ah--another "non-violence" advocate. Newsbusters has the despicable details (audio here):

I guess what I'll do if I'm ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle ["high-caliber"--like the AR-15's .223?] like that, I'll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g**-damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they're going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn't shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead [Malloy also appears to have rather optimistic expectations regarding cops' marksmanship].

More Here

David Codrea JPFO Alert: Holder reanimates "Frankenstein monster"

"You may have high hopes for the retrieval of your bureaucratic fortunes with this reanimation of the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, but the villagers will be watching this time for the operational reappearance of Janet Reno's Frankenstein, with pitchforks, torches, and (not accidentally thanks to your boss) plenty of firearms in their hands when it does," Mike Vanderboegh warned Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday in an open letter posted on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

More Here at JPFO:

David Codrea: ‘Three Percenters’ targets of official smear campaign

David does a good job of showing how wrong this propaganda is:

Issued following this month’s Las Vegas killings, a bulletin leaked from the New York State Intelligence Center has warned state law enforcement against a “recent spike in violence” targeting them, and cites a figure familiar to Gun Rights Examiner readers as a catalyst for inspiring those so inclined.

“Michael Brian Vanderboegh, a longtime militia member and founder of the III Percent Patriot Movement which was supported by Jerad and Amanda Miller, travelled to NYS at least once in 2013 to speak to the Liberty Oath Keepers meeting in Monticello, NY.,” the “official use only” bulletin marked “Not for public or media release” advises. “The III Percent Patriots are a militia group comprised primarily of gun rights extremists who believe in the need to use violence against the government to prevent what they believe to be an impending seizure of all private firearms.

(snip)

 Footnotes make it clear the “information” is being sourced from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, both “progressive” groups vehemently anti-gun, at least the privately-owned kind, and neither shy about portraying their ideological opponents as domestic terrorists. (SPLC’s attacks on Oath Keepers have been documented in this column for years.)

More here at Gun Rights Examiner

PA: Armed Employee Stops Robbery at Mall

Stroudsburg, Monroe County – An armed store employee helped stop a robbery at the Stroud Mall in Monroe County. It started on Craigslist. One person arranged to sell a cell phone to someone in front of the mall. The internet buyer turned out to be a robber who violently tried to steal the phone.

More Here

MN:Armed Store Owner Holds Burglar

Kert grabbed his Ruger handgun and went upstairs to confront the burglar. He was struck across one arm with a flashlight and then the stopped the burglar in his tracks with what was in his other hand.

"That's a 22 semi-automatic Luger. As fast as you pull the trigger it will shoot 10 shots. I grabbed him and threw him down here on the floor. I got on top of him and said don’t you move and I said a few other choice words I shouldn't repeat," Kert said.

More Here

Man Shoots Robber after 911 Call Goes to Voicemail

Here is a discomforting fact: 911 has voicemail. Florida resident John Breau discovered this the hard way, in the middle of an armed robbery when his child, wife and stepmother were in the house.

At what exact point the attacked man called the police is unclear, however, local news station Fox 13 reported that the call went to voicemail as the robbers returned to the house:

 A man called 911 after four robbers with guns broke into his home, demanded money and prescription drugs.

The dispatcher tried to transfer the call from the fire department to law enforcement side of things – but he got a voicemail just as the crooks returned to the home.

Chaos ensues. The man takes matters into his own hands and shoot one of the robbers.

He then tells the dispatcher that he's been robbed, and two women in the home were physically hurt.

Breau used a shotgun to protect himself and his family while the call went to voicemail not once, but twice. It took 3 minutes and 41 seconds for the station to dispatch emergency aid, according to WTSP. Even then, the deputies were “sent to the wrong address while a gunfight was in progress.”

This is a jarring reminder that systems are flawed, humans (such as the person operating Breau’s call) make mistakes, and owning a gun just might be your best option for protecting yourself and your family.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2014/06/16/man-shoots-robber-after-911-call-goes-to-voicemail-n1852207

Leftist projection never stops

They have been blaming the socialist Hitler on "The Right" for decades so it is no surprise that the Left have a kneejerk tendency to blame aggrieved mass shooters similarly, even though such shooters usually turn out to be from the Left.  The latest notorious shooters are no different.  The  Las Vegas Cop Killers,  Jerad and Amanda Miller were referred to by "Salon" as "Right-wing anger turned deadly".  They were in fact members of  the Far Left "Occupy" Movement.  Conservatives are basically contented people.  It is the Left who are full of anger



We have been bombarded with the Millers’ connection to the Bundy Ranch, Alex Jones and the liberty movement in general. The liberty movement is massive and it does not emcompass only the right-wing. But we were led to believe that the Millers were Tea Party-loving right-wing extremists. That is what the media wants America to believe…

… it will come as no surprise to our readers that the Millers were involved in the “Occupy Movement.” Again, the liberty movement is massive but the Occupy Protests tend to be attributed to the left. Bundy Ranch tends to be associated with the right. They are both cases of civil disobedience but obviously the media wants to paint a picture of the Millers as being people who voted for Romney rather than Obama. This is how the media constantly pushes the agenda of the left. Nearly every news publication in America printed something about the associations of the Millers, but very few printed this:

According to CBS Chicago:

While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

Nick Wertz, one of the organizers of the Lafayette march, said it attracted many people upset over a lot of issues.  "Everyone there just seem kind of like normal people. At least they were going to stick up with what they thought was right,” he said.

Wertz said he didn’t really know the Millers, but weeks after the march, Amanda Miller contacted him. “She was moving to Vegas for whatever reason and they had a dog they couldn’t take with – and I was like, ‘If I can help,’” Wertz said.  But that was the end of it, he said.

The Millers were not alone.  Several #Occupy members were arrested for assault, robbery, vandalism, rape and murder.

SOURCE

Do you need a gun?