all i am going to say

Do not expect much of a post from me about the shooting at the school in Newtown, CT last Friday; I, for one, do not believe in using the blood of victims as a fuel to further my political goals, unlike your average "gun control" fetishist. My thoughts and prayers are unquestionably with the families of those killed in this horrific crime, though, and if you do want something to read, you should read this.

I will say this much: "gun control" failed those children. Connecticut has an "assault weapon" ban. It did not work. Schools are "gun-free zones". That magical forcefield did not work. It is illegal to carry a handgun in Connecticut in public without a license. That did not stop the murderer. The teachers and principal of the elementary school were disarmed by the force of law. Even though at least one of them tried to resist, he lacked the tools to do so effectively.

And yet, despite the abject and complete failure of "gun control", the answer is… more "gun control"? How does that even begin to make sense?

More to the point, how does it make sense to punish millions of law-abiding American citizens because one person chose to become a criminal? I am not responsible for other people’s actions. I am not accountable for other people’s actions. As such, I refuse to be punished for those actions. At least the asshole murderer (who shall remain nameless on this site, for reasons well-documented here) took care of his own punishment for us.

And one final comment: "gun control" remains racist, even to this day. Every month, Chicago sees more firearm-related fatalities than transpired in Newtown on Friday, with the overwhelming majority of the victims being of darker skin tones. "Gun control" extremists never seem to care about those people, though (probably because such caring would be something of a tacit admission that the draconian "gun control" in Chicago is not working out so well for the city). Likewise, we will probably never know how many thousands of Mexicans, and possibly Americans, were killed with firearms the federal government smuggled across the border into Mexico as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Unfortunately, anti-rights cultists do not seem to care about brown victims.

But give those blood-dancing, victim-exploiting vampires a school full of lily-white children murdered by someone using a firearm, and all of a sudden, it is "GAME ON!" (Yes, there were minorities represented amongst the Sandy Hook shooting victims, but there were also whites shot in Chicago; the point stands.) I do not think I can adequately describe my contempt for such people.

In the end, I hate that these children were murdered, but I also hate that people like Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School who attempted to stop the murderer bare-handed, were prohibited from employing tools that have a recorded history of stopping spree- and mass-shooters. "Gun free zones" demonstrably do not work, and only create an environment where mass-murderers know they will not encounter any kind of armed, effective resistance. How about we give up on a failed program and try something else?

why we win

CSGVBloodDancingIt really boils down to a difference in perceptions.

On the one hand, "gun control" fetishists gleefully dance in the blood of victims and exploit the murder of innocents to further their own, personal, unjust, totalitarian, anti-Constitutional dreams, as documented in the image to the right. (Highlights added to really bring out the crazy in those cultists’ eyes.)

On the other hand, we quite cheerfully and respectfully celebrate the lawful, peaceful defense of civil rights and the restoration of the same to an entire state of people for whom certain aspects of the United States Constitution might as well have never existed.

Now, tell me – to an outside observer, which group of people would appear to be the more rational, reasonable, well-adjusted, and positive? And which would be perceived as being destructive, irresponsible, and negative? Hm.

In other news, I am very thankful I am not the only person who considered the Portland, OR mall shooting yesterday to be remarkably… coincidental… what with it happening on the same day as the decision in Moore v. Madigan being passed down. Obviously I am not hypothesizing that "gun control" extremists keep spree shooters locked in a big pen until they are needed, and then release them into the wild to distract/detract from pro-rights victories; that would require more coordination and intelligence than those organizations are capable of. But I do think the media sees incidents like these transpire on the same day as something major like that court case, and think, "Oh, hey, this would make a great counterpoint; let’s blow this out of proportion!"

After all, more people were murdered in Chicago on the 30th than were murdered in the Clackamas Town Center on the 11th, but the former is the "gun control" capitol of the country, and we would not want to highlight the fact that such policies demonstrably do not work, now, would we?

(And for a dose of humor, that Michael Barkley character at the bottom, whinging about not being supported by his anti-rights cultist ilk? We have discussed him before, and apparently even his fellow fetishists think he is too far out in the weeds to really care about – he admits to coming in "a distant fourth" in his district. Poor baby.)

heroes walk amongst us

… Every day.

The murders and shootings that transpired in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado less than a week ago were unquestionably horrific and tragic, but the honest truth is that one person and one person alone bears the full responsibility and accountability for those events: the shooter behind the guns. The movie theater is not responsible for the shootings (though they are responsible for forcing their customers to remain defenseless while on their property). The movie producers are not responsible. The movie itself is not responsible. The NRA is not responsible. Gun owners are not responsible. The people who sold this murderous scumbag his guns/ammunition/accessories are not responsible.

Only the person who pulled the triggers is responsible for the deaths and injuries resulting from that action.

As such, Christian Bale was under absolutely no compunction to do this, but it shows the depth of his class that he did:

Christian Bale, star of the last three Batman films, met at the Medical Center of Aurora on Tuesday afternoon with seven patients injured in the mass shooting that occurred during a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Hospital interim president Bill Voloch said Bale spent about 2½ hours at the hospital, where he met with five people being treated for their injuries. Two others came from Swedish Medical Center to meet Bale, who stars as Batman/Bruce Wayne.

[…]

Bale and his wife, Sibi Blazic, also met with a number of doctors, Aurora police officers and emergency medical technicians who were first responders when [name redacted] allegedly killed 12 people and injured 58 others at Century Aurora 16 theater early Friday. Bale spent about 10 minutes with each person.

[…]

Voloch said Bale notified hospital officials that he wanted to visit the injured but asked that media not be notified. "He just wanted to meet with victims and police."

That last part is key for me; he did not make this visit because he wanted the publicity and good-will it would unquestionably generate, he made this visit because he wanted to provide what support and comfort he could to those who suffered or helped those in suffering. In other words, this was not about him, it was about them.

For a product of Hollywood, that is pretty awesome.

However, the awesome does not stop there. Predictably, "gun control" extremists have been unabashedly dancing in the blood of the Aurora victims, trying to exploit this tragedy to generate support for their own failed policies. The good news is that despicable profiteering has not been working, and the better news is some of the victims* have rightfully shown that blood-dancing for what it is:

Michael Eric Dyson, guest host on MSNBC’s Ed Show: Do you think that there should be a push for tighter gun laws given the horror that you just endured and how it has impacted you personally? Do you feel compelled to push for tighter gun laws?

Jordan Ghawi, brother of victim Jessica Ghawi: Here’s the thing, we can try to politicize this and make some sort of polarizing debate and make this a tenet of the election, but that’s not what we’re here to do right now. We’re here to celebrate the lives of the victims that have been lost.

If somebody wants to do harm to somebody, they’re going to find a way to do it. Whether it be with a weapon, such as a rifle or whether it be with any sort of means we should actually start to think about why people are doing this. And the reason why they’re doing this is because they want their names out there.

Again, it is that last part that is key, and that is exactly why the Aurora theater shooter’s name will never be written on this site, even though doing so would unquestionably help my Google Page Rank or whatever that thingie is called these days.

The Aurora murderer did not kill all of those people because of the guns, or because he was "misunderstood", or even because he had a personal grudge/vendetta against one of the movie-goers; as his court hearing all-but confirmed, he killed all of those folks simply because he wanted the fame, and I will be damned if I provide that to him. Furthermore, as Mr. Ghawi points out, given the complexity, scale, and bloody-mindedness behind the booby traps the shooter left behind in his apartment, people were going to die that night, regardless of whether the Aurora murderer used a firearm, a bomb, or a can of gasoline and a length of chain. He had decided he was going to kill folks, and that is that.

But we are not done yet; the real bad-ass is Mr. Justin Davis:

Less than one day after he escaped the chaos and carnage of the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, lifelong Batman fan Justin Davis was back at the movies with a sense of purpose.

Davis, 16, was accompanied by his brother and a friend to a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” at a different Colorado movie theater.

“I just want to finish it, and for all those men, women and children that didn’t get to finish it, I want to finish it for them,” he said.

Why did he go back to the movies? Because f*ck you. Or, more specifically, f*ck the theater shooter, which is exactly the right attitude to take. The more you deviate from your normal pattern, the more you do not do things you would have done otherwise, the more you succumb to fear, the more the scumbag murderer gets exactly what he wanted, and I very much doubt any of us want to appease that particular waste of space. So screw him. Go about your life, do what you were going to do anywise, and do not give a psychopathic murderer the satisfaction of having people who may be walking around, but are still "victims" rather than "survivors".

Yes, some spineless lowlifes are trampling all over the memories and suffering of those murdered and wounded during the Aurora shooting, and while they should be ashamed of themselves, the seem to lack the capacity to do so or recognize what they are doing is wrong; however, more importantly, there are a non-zero number of folks who are willing to stand up and be identified as Americans who are unafraid of mentally warped murderers and who know that banning the tool those murderers use is going to change nothing. I have no respect for the former, but, thankfully, the latter balances things out.

(* – And, yes, Jordan Ghawi is as much a victim of "gun violence" as Joan Peterson is, with as much moral authority to boot (if not moreso, since he has not demonstrated a remarkable propensity for lying and a rather disturbing psychological unbalancedness).)

quote of the day – matthew

I have already discussed how much of a losing proposition I consider the recent theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado to be; as others have said, it embodies pretty much the "perfect" (though I hate to use that word) Kobayashi Maru scenario for self-defense, only with no way to hack into the server the night before and cheat your way through to victory.

That does not mean I would not have tried to bring the asshole down if I thought there were even a glimmer of a chance for me to do so, and that does not mean you should not try if you are of a similar mindset either.

Which brings us to the quote of the day provided by the brilliant mind behind "Straight Forward in a Crooked World":

He said finally "you know…my fear is I’d piss my pants if that ever happens." I’ll tell you like I told him "piss them and then shoot the son of a bitch".

Bravery is not the absence of fear; bravery is the overcoming of fear. I can only hope I will be able to do what I need to when I need to, and then I will worry about little details like changing my pants later (though hopefully before some scumbag news reporter looking for the next big "scoop" finds me).

But that is the somewhat key mentality, if I can say as much without ever being in a situation even remotely approximating what transpired in the theater on Thursday – do what you need to in order to keep yourself and your family alive, and deal with the petty details later. But you have to decide that now, and you have to come to terms with what you may or may not have to do now (up to and including taking another person’s life), such that you can simply act in that moment, rather than think about it; if there is one thing we can learn from spree/mass shootings, it is that quick, decisive, violent action on the part of the would-be victims can bring the situation to a screeching halt. (This is not to blame the theater-goers for not acting – as I said, that specific situation is horrifically unique – just an observation from other shootings.)

In closing, I would like to steal another page out of Matthew’s book, and remind people why it is we carry guns:

Some people do not want your money. Some people do not want your car. Some people do not want your virginity. Some people do not want your stuff.

Some people just want to watch it all, including you, burn. And sure as I know anything, these people – if they really can be called "people" – will not be swayed, deterred, or even slowed by something as idiotic and poorly thought-out as "gun control"; you need only look at the complexity and scale of the explosive traps set in the Aurora shooter’s apartment to realize that he was going to kill people that night, and he was going to be successful, regardless of the tool he chose to use.

So, as long as people like that continue to live and breathe amongst us, people like me are going to take whatever peaceful, responsible steps we deem necessary to ensure, or at least improve the chances of, our families’ safeties, so how about the blood-dancing imbeciles amongst us stop attempting to pin the blame on people who had nothing to do with this shooting, and let us take care of our own lives without their petty authoritarian interference?

Thanks.

no matter how hard i muddle

… Guns and alcohol simply will not mix.

But moving on to more serious matters, it would appear as though the usual, useful idiots are trotting out the usual, useless arguments about ZOMG guns in bars. Color me surprised. However, just like here in Tennessee all those years ago, most of the arguments against allowing law-abiding, trained, and permitted individuals to carry firearms into establishments that serve alcohol are based on misdirection (the bill does not exclusively cover "bars", but also restaurants), hysteria, and misinformation, but all those similarities bring up an interesting question: what has happened here in the Patron State of Shooting Stuff ever since it became legal to lawfully carry a firearm into restaurants over two years ago*?

Well, in stark contrast with the doom-and-gloom prognostications of hoplophobic liars, the answer has pretty much been "nothing":

In 2010, the year after the law first passed, the state’s tourism numbers were up 6.3 percent, according to state officials. Every county saw a boost in tourism, according to a report by the Department of Tourism Development and the U.S. Travel Association.

“It doesn’t surprise me that tourism didn’t drop,” said Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville. “There wasn’t one documented case still to this day of someone going into a bar, a gun permit holder, and using their firearm. There’s still not.”

[…]

In fact, abiding by the law appears to be just what the vast majority of Tennessee’s licensed gun-carriers are doing when they’re packing heat in establishments that serve alcohol. According to the state Department of Safety and Homeland Security, not one person with a handgun permit has been convicted of brandishing their weapon while drinking in a bar.

“We have not been notified by any courts across the state for any violations of that law,” said department spokeswoman Jennifer Donnals. “To our knowledge, there have been no convictions of that law.”

Huh. Would you look at that. In a year when the economy is tanking, people are being laid off, homes are being foreclosed, and the depression recession we find ourselves in was getting into full swing, the tourism in Tennessee (one of our state’s prime sources of income, given our no-income-tax-but-state-wide-sales-tax arrangement) increased over 6%, despite allowing law-abiding citizens to peaceably carry firearms into establishments that serve alcohol. Why, it is almost like people do not mind the notion of respecting and preserving everyone’s individual rights! What a thought…

On the other hand, given the complete and utter lack of criminal convictions, fatalities, or even incidents from handgun carry permit holders bringing their sidearms along into restaurants, would you care to take a guess as to how many alcohol-related fatalities there were on the roads here in Tennessee in 2010? Unfortunately, the numbers have not been updated for that year quite yet, but if past history is any indication of future performance, we are looking at well over 300 deaths, and that does not include the thousands of people who failed breathalyzer tests. So rather than turn their attention to an activity that has a proven record of resulting in convictions and deaths, the "gun control" extremists single-mindedly focus on arbitrarily abridging people’s rights for no good reason whatsoever. How is that "common sense" again?

Once again, anti-rights cultists do not really care about the blood (or lack thereof) they are dancing in, they do not care about public safety, and they sure as hell do not care about the American people; they only care about control and how to increase it. Thankfully, Ohio is following the trend sweeping the nation of expanding and preserving freedoms and rights despite the fearmongering of hoplophobes, and if Tennessee is any indication, I think they will do just fine.

* – At least the first time. The bill had to be passed again with modified language later.

(Courtesy of Michael Silence and Senator Stacey Campfield.)

quote of the day – patrick

Regular readers should be wholly aware of Brady Campaign Board Member and general-purpose "gun control" extremist, Joan Peterson, and her particular inability to craft or identify logical arguments, but do you remember that Joan’s flagrant, whimsical, and ineffective attempts to censor conversations at her site were the reason Sean Sorrentino started weblogging? Patrick did, which allowed him to make this priceless comment regarding how Sean is helping improve the media’s perspective on firearm owners:

And just think, Japete is Sean’s blog mother… LOL.

As I have said before in various places, Joan (or "japete", as she is known on her site) may just be one of the best things that has happened to pro-rights activists in recent history; however, while that point is certainly available for contention, I think everyone can agree that she is unquestionably her own worst enemy. Her logical fallacies, inability to live up to her own promises, blood-dancing, heavy-handed "moderation", belief that some lives are more valuable than others, lies, and double-standards have done more to alienate people from her and her cause than any of us could have ever dreamed of doing by actually taking the time to address her specious sophistry, and we should probably thank her for that.

But given the fervor and cultish narrow-mindedness with which she pursues the possibility of arbitrarily and unjustly abridging your Constitutionally-protected, individual rights, I cannot help but to chuckle at how that all-consuming zealousness only causes her to fail faster.

it is all a matter of perspective

Dragon brings up an interesting point regarding the recent Long Island pharmacy murders:

Regardless, this latest killing does NOT help our cause as supporters of the 2A. [Shooter] was legally allowed to own handguns, in complete accordance and adherence to NY laws. He had no prior criminal history. He was, in all respects, a legal gun owner.

I would, however, like to take a moment to flip that paradigm on its nose. As Dragon says, the alleged murderer in this case has apparently abided by all of the various and sundry New York state laws associated with firearm ownership. What are those laws, you ask?

Firearm registration. The alleged shooter’s firearm was registered with the state, as it was supposed to be. This did not stop the alleged murderer from using them in his crimes.

Firearm owner permits. To own a firearm lawfully in New York, the alleged shooter had to have a permit from the state. This did not stop the alleged murderer from killing people with his firearms.

Magazine capacity limitations. All post-AWB firearms, such as the XD apparently used in this shooting, are limited to 10-round magazines. This did not stop the alleged murderer from shooting four people.

In short, almost every single one of the pipe-dream laws so monomaniacally sought after by anti-rights cultists failed.

"Gun control" failed.

And, speaking more generally, given the arcane and draconian laws New York has implemented to keep law-abiding citizens from bearing arms, those four victims at the pharmacy never stood much of a chance, if any, of defending themselves. Chalk up another failure (this time through "success", since the victims were "successfully" disarmed) for "gun control".

That is how we should be approaching any anti-rights cultist who attempts to exploit these murders in some disgusting, blood-dancing attempt to enact more useless and ineffective laws – in this single microcosm, "gun control" laws completely and totally failed to prevent, or even slow, the murder of four innocent citizens. We do not have to – and should not – let the anti-rights cultists redefine the terrain of the debate to suit their blatantly bigoted and intolerant desires. We can – and should – hang that failure around the necks of anyone who would propose compounding this disaster by throwing even more pointless laws at the situation.