Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Pam Colletta, on Michigan Dove Hunting

I don’t like being lied to. Do you? Voters need to know that they are being lied to when they hear the ads saying one should vote no on dove hunting in Michigan.

The ad begins by saying that dove hunting proponents are trying to change tradition, when actually Michigan dove hunting advocates are trying to embrace a tradition that is long established across the US. In other states the opening day of dove season is a bigger family tradition than the opening day of deer season!

The ad then goes on to say that out-of-state interest groups are behind the dove hunt in Michigan. In reality it is Michigan hunters who have been trying to open up dove hunting in our state for more than 20 years. The irony in this issue is that the group behind the fight to prevent dove hunting in Michigan is from outside of the state. The Humane Society of the United States (not to be confused with the legitimate American Humane Association) is a California based anti-hunting organization. The President of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, has stated that their goal is to stop hunting in the United States one animal and one State at a time. Preventing Michigan hunters from hunting mourning doves is just one step in achieving their goal.

Another point they make is that doves do not damage property. In fact doves do millions of dollars of damage to crops in Michigan, including eating seed from the sunflowers grown here for oil; and disfiguring trees when they enter and exit the boughs in the spring and early summer as the new growth is forming on the spruces and pines grown for Christmas trees.

The anti-hunting groups claim that doves are only shot for target practice because they are so small that they cannot be used for food. The reality is that doves are very difficult to shoot because they fly in an erratic manner, changing direction quickly with no warning. As target practice they are not a very cooperative specimen. As far as being too small to eat, there is more meat on a dove breast than there is on a shrimp or a bluegill.

The anti-hunters aver that mourning doves are not overpopulated in Michigan. While doves may not be overpopulated, they are not underpopulated either. Each spring and summer doves lay and hatch two to three times during the season, hatching two to six young in each nest. Even if only two survive from each nesting that makes at the very least, double the number of doves each year. It has been proven that they repopulate at a faster rate than it is possible to hunt them. In the 40 states where doves have been hunted for many years biologists have learned that the attrition rate of doves to hunting does not come close to equaling their attrition to death by natural causes. The life expectancy of a mourning dove is 18 months to 3 years. The majority of the dove population die of natural causes over the course of a year. If they are going to die anyway why not put them to good use and eat them?

So, when the ads say there is no good reason to hunt doves remember that there are good reasons - namely because they make good food and a fun and challenging activity the whole family can enjoy. The next time you hear that ad on the radio or see it on TV I hope you’ll remember the truth about what they are saying. And come November 7th vote YES on Proposal 3.

Pam Colletta

Current Mood: Thoughtful
Current Music: Never Gonna Give you Up - Rick Astley
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Monday, October 30, 2006

Free Speech Online is Under threat

Amnesty International Warns Free Speech Online Is Under Threat

October 27, 2006 12:34 p.m. EST

Mary K. Brunskill - All Headline News Staff Writer

London, England (AHN) - The human rights group Amnesty International is saying freedom of expression online is being threatened and is asking bloggers to support the right to speak freely on the Internet. The group asks that bloggers write on free-speech violations and declare that they do not support any kind of suppression of speech over the Internet.

Steve Ballinger of Amnesty International tells BBC News, "Freedom of expression online is a right, not a privilege - but it's a right that needs defending. We are asking bloggers worldwide to show their solidarity with Web users in countries where they can face jail just for criticizing the government."

"People have been locked up just for expressing their views in an e-mail or on a Web site," he says. "Sites and blogs have been shut down and firewalls built to prevent access to information."

Ballinger points to Iranian blogger Kianoosh Sanjari as an example of someone the government punished for speaking his mind. Sanjari was arrested early this month after discussing conflicts between the Iranian police and the supporters of Shia cleric Ayatollah Boroujerdi on his blog.

Amnesty International is taking its campaign to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which is a group the UN set up to act as a debating body for national Internet policies.

"The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is concerned about free expression online and is willing to stand up for it," Ballinger says.

I don't often agree with Amnesty International. The seem a bit too much to the left for me. However, I do agree on this subject. Our basic Human right of Free Speech online is being threatened, not only by oppressive governments, like Iran, but to a lesser degree, and worse, more surreptitiously, by our own "democratic" government as well.

Be on the lookout for any violations of Free Speech online. Report them, if you have a blog. If you don't, tell someone you know who does, keep this in the public eye. Well, the internet public anyway.

Current Mood: Neutral
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92

Monday, October 23, 2006

The 'Gunguys' are at it again.

They apparently forget the old saying (one that most liberals are happy to quote when they're behind in the polls) There are lies, damn lies,statistics, and polls.

Funny, I never got a call from any pollster asking me, my opinion.

Poll: Majority of Americans Want Stronger Gun Laws

Finally today, Gallup has released a new poll that says, in plain numbers, just how extreme the NRA is. All across the country, a strong majority of Americans favors stricter gun laws.

Many adults in the United States would like to enact tougher regulations for firearms, according to a two recent public opinion polls. In a survey by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News, 61 per cent of respondents favour stricter gun control laws in their country.

In a study by Gallup released by USA Today, 56 per cent of respondents feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, down one point in a year.

The U.S. Constitution's second amendment guarantees Americans the right “to keep and bear arms.” Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.

The Second Amendment doesn’t “guarantee” anything– gun guys often forget that the Amendment also contains the phrase “well-regulated.” We need stronger gun laws in this country, because without them, we face an epidemic of gun violence– in our schools, on our streets, anywhere our citizens try to live safely. Most Americans, it’s clear, understand that. The NRA, a clear minority, can’t seem to get it through their heads.

And 'Gunguys' can't seem to get it through their skulls that the NRA is not the only Pro-2nd Amendment group out there, not to mention, they forgot what the US Attorney General's Office has already stated:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Hey Gunguys, get a hint. Get it right, for a change.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Propaganda - Sparks
Current Gun: Taurus 617B2 .357 Magnum

Friday, October 20, 2006

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the next Hitler?

Ok Mahmoud, what is this crap???
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.

"This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands gathered at a rally in support of the Palestinians in the capital Tehran.

If you ask me, Mr. Ahmadinejad has no reason to be, anymore. Could someone PLEASE take this guy out!?! You'd be doing the entire world a huge favor.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS

Hey, Mayor Nagin, GIVE THE GUNS BACK!!

Yeah, you, Mayor Nagin. The court has already told you to stop your Nazi gun confiscation tactics. And you've been told to give them back. So what's the hold up? Since your Storm Troopers took her gun away and beat her up, Ms. Patricia Konie has been robbed, in her own house, because your brown shirts took her gun, she could not defend herself!

Mayor Nagin, YOU should be ashamed. I am not normally a litigious person, but I hope Ms. Konie gets a good lawyer, and sues the City of New Orleans, and YOU. You deserve it, so you might learn that taking away a law abiding citizen's rights have consequences.

And, you can kiss my Big White Hairy Butt!


Big Gay Al

For those of you who might be interested, click on the title of this post, it will take you to http://www.givethemback.com, and you can see some frightening videos of police storm troopers in action in New Orleans. Normally, I have the highest respect for the men and women who work in Law Enforcement. But those who took part in the ILLEGAL gun confiscation efforts against law-abiding citizens, should be ashamed of their actions, and should be stripped of their office.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Bad boys (Theme from Cops) - Inner Circle
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

India vows to work for conventional disarmament

What ticks me off, they try to make it sound like the idea is to stop illicit trade in small arms. Their (The UN) actual goal is to stop the trade (both legal and illegal) in ALL small arms to private citizens. Once you or I can no longer own, buy and/or possess firearms, we will be subjects, not citizens. And that is the difference between being Free, and being slaves.

Indo-Asian News Service

United Nations, October 18, 2006

India has vowed to work towards steady progress in the areas of conventional disarmament as small arms and light weapons directly affect a large mass of people in conventional conflicts.

If the entire spectrum of weaponry that is the focus of disarmament and arms control measures was to be placed within a pyramid, it would have a three-tiered structure, Indian delegate Anil Basu said in a UN General Assembly committee debate on Tuesday.

"Nuclear weapons, our foremost priority, will constitute the top of the pyramid, followed by chemical and biological weapons at the middle layer. But the broadest part of the pyramid will be made up by conventional weapons and small arms and light weapons," he noted.

While it is vital to address the apex of the pyramid, its base constitutes a larger, more contingent concern, affecting directly a large mass of people afflicted by conventional conflict, Basu said.

As India's approach to disarmament and international security is guided by a strong commitment to international humanitarian law, it hoped to have a positive and forward-looking outcome of the Review Conference on Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva next month.

India is among 20 state parties that adhere to the entire CCW package. It also favours strengthening the convention through a compliance mechanism.

Unregulated and illicit trade in conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons are continuing to have devastating consequences, Basu said. The direct costs include death, injury and trauma and the cost of caring for the wounded and disabled, not to speak of the destruction of the civilian infrastructure.

The indirect costs include displacement, destitution and prolonged underdevelopment. The proliferation of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons gravely endangers the security of states, disrupts their social harmony and hampers growth and development.

The ready availability of illicit weapons foster organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal exploitation of natural resources. It promotes sectarian violence, insurgency and terrorism, he said.

India is, therefore, strongly committed to the full and effective implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Preventing, Combating and Eradicating Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

"It is a good augury that we now have an international instrument containing vital commitment by UN member states to mark all small arms and light weapons according to universal standards and cooperate with each other in tracing illicit ones," Basu said.

Hoping for similar cooperative action in other related areas concerning small arms, including on brokering and the prohibition of transfer of weapons to non-state actors, including terrorists, he said India has a forward-looking approach.

"We believe that, even on the contentious issues, a balanced approach could accommodate national security imperatives, humanitarian requirements, financial costs and technological constraints, Basu said.

India also favours strengthened cooperation in mine clearance, including unrestricted transfer of mine clearance technology, equipment and training; risk education; rehabilitation; victim assistance and socio-economic betterment of mine-affected communities.

"In the field of conventional disarmament, we believe that an enhanced level of transparency will contribute greatly to confidence building and security amongst states," he said.

Friday, October 13, 2006

The criminally minded don't get concealed-carry permits

Mark MacDanel

MacDanel, of Harrisonburg, is a laboratory technician at the Merck & Co. Inc., Stonewall Plant in Elkton.

This is in response to the commentary by Nancy A. Gibbs concerning the presence of guns on campus ("Keep guns, licensed or not, off campus," Sept. 24).

My daughter attends school at Virginia Tech and was in her dorm room when the campus was turned upside down by the presence of a loose killer.

She lives in one of the dorms that overlooks the Drill Field. She called me several times on her cellphone during the incident.

She remained calm and reported seeing a large number of military type people all over the campus.

I asked her if they were armed. She said she thought they were. She was struck by the fact that students were still walking around the campus, too, apparently oblivious to the danger.

My reaction was the opposite of Gibbs'. I was glad the campus was locked down with armed officers, and I wished some of the responsible students were also armed.

When I visit my daughter, I discretely carry my concealed weapon with me. Why? For the same reason the police carry their weapons. To protect the public and myself.

My daughter was trying to escape the campus and get to her boyfriend's apartment, where it was assumed safer.

I wish either she or her boyfriend had a gun when she walked out the back door of that dorm and headed down the street into the town of Blacksburg. She might have needed it. She made it.

The idea that guns are inherently unsafe is not as naïve as the notion that some campus rule is going to keep any nut from bringing a weapon onto the campus and using it.

People who get a concealed-weapon permit subject themselves to a formal application process, fingerprinting by the local police and a $50 fee. Our fingerprints are on file nationwide with the FBI.

Does anyone really think a criminally minded person is going to subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny, when they can just get a gun anywhere on the street, put it in their pocket and walk anywhere they want with it? Do you think a sign or a rule will have any effect on their behavior or intentions?

In the words of another gun supporter: "Have you noticed that every time an anti-gunner calls a gun owner 'paranoid,' the anti-gunner then proceeds to show himself to be the one who is actually paranoid?"

I have to laugh every time they do that. Gibbs' last paragraph is typical of such a person. She is saying that no student can be trusted and even questions guns in the hands of police. How's that for paranoid?

In case you don't get it, CRIMINALS, by their very definition, will NOT apply for a permit to carry a gun. YET, the liberal, left wing namby pamby cry babies continue to treat lawful gun owners and those of us with carry permits, as if we ARE criminals. Which, we are not. In fact, according to verifiable research, WE, as a group (Permit holders) are more law-abiding than the general public!

So, Mayor Blumberg, and all his friends can take their anti-Freedom position and stuff it up their BUTTS!

Oh, and have a nice day. :D

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music:None
Current Gun:Taurus PT92AFS

Monday, October 09, 2006

PBA to cops: Don't Rush

Ok guys and dolls, better keep your guns ready. Looks like the police can't be counted on. (Like they were ever coming to your rescue in the first place!)

PBA to cops: Don't rush
In challenging policy to balance precinct staffing, union chief urges cops to wait for backup in emergencies
Newsday Staff Writer

October 6, 2006

A dispute has escalated between Nassau County and its biggest police union over a redeployment of officers - with the union's president even urging members not to rush to certain emergencies without backup.

The clash stems from a police department order last month requiring for the first time that if one precinct is above minimum staffing levels and another is below them, officers be reassigned to make up the shortfall. It would save overtime costs, officials have said.

In an e-mail to members, Gary DelaRaba, president of the Nassau Police Benevolent Association, warns that forcing police to patrol areas with which they are unfamiliar would be dangerous and counterproductive. So he urges that in situations where two officers are required the officer join up with a partner before rushing to the scene. The e-mail said:

"I know this goes against everything you were trained to do but if you get a gun call, a baby stop[ped] breathing, violent mental aided [or] any call that requires two officers, meet [the veteran precinct officer] at a specific location then proceed as quickly as possible to the call.

"YOU ARE NOT PAID TO TAKE FOOLISH CHANCES WITH YOUR LIFE! Your number one job is to make it home after each tour of duty."

Police Commissioner James Lawrence condemned the union leader's missive as "despicable."

In case the other link doesn't work, (That's the big title of this article.) you can also see the rest of the story here

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Stratford officials worry about mayor carrying guns

Stratford officials worry about mayor carrying guns

October 8, 2006

STRATFORD, Conn. --Mayor James R. Miron is taking some heat for allegedly packing heat.

A Town Council leader and some town workers say Miron has taken a handgun into his Town Hall office and town council meetings, raising concerns about public safety and making them uncomfortable, the Connecticut Post reported Sunday. Some say they have seen the mayor with a gun at both his hip and strapped to his ankle.

Miron, 41, a lawyer and retired Marine, refused to confirm or deny that he carries weapons to Town Hall or meetings. But he defended his right to do so.

"If I do carry guns to Town Hall, I would never admit that for personal safety reasons and my own right to privacy," said Miron, a Democrat. "I don't want someone intent on firing a gun at me or anyone else knowing if I carry guns or not."

Miron said he has had a gun permit since 1999. Local police say he had a town permit that expired last year. The mayor says he now has a state permit that allows him to carry guns anywhere in the state. He said the only reason he would fire his weapon is to defend himself or to save another person's life.

Under state permits, weapons must be concealed at all times, police say. Records on gun permits are not accessible by the public.

"It is my right to carry guns, and it is also my right not to confirm when and where I carry them," Miron said.

James Feehan, a Republican and chairman of the Town Council, told the newspaper that he saw the mayor carrying two guns at the same time -- one strapped to the ankle and the other under his suit jacket -- during a council meeting within the past few months.

"As a gun owner myself, I believe the mayor certainly has the right to carry a gun or guns as long as he has a legal permit," Feehan said. "However, if his guns are making Town Hall employees and citizens uncomfortable, as I have been told, I would ask that he cease and desist immediately.

"While I understand the mayor's personal safety concerns, I don't believe he should be carrying guns to Town Hall if they are posing a threat to anyone," Feehan said.

Ok, so someone tell me, HOW do the mayor's guns pose a threat to someone? I mean, are his guns standing up and saying "I'm gonna shoot you sucka!"??? The only way guns can be a threat would be if they are in someone's hand, being pointed at someone else. Then the person they are pointed at could consider himself threatened. Otherwise, I'd tell those people who work at City hall to sit down, shut up and get back to work.

If yo want to read the rest of the story, click here.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

'Gun-free school zones' killing kids

Special to the Star-Telegram

Three fatal attacks on school property in less
than a week -- more than 20 since February 1996
when a 14-year-old youth strolled into a junior
high school in Moses Lake, Wash., and opened
fire, killing two students and a teacher.

The dirty little secret of all these atrocities
is that they happened in so-called "gun-free
school zones." Before enactment of that horribly
misguided federal legislation and its state-level
clones, one never read about school massacres because there weren't any.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act transformed the
public school landscape into a free-fire zone for
whackos by removing any possibility, however
small, that an armed teacher, student or private
citizen might be present to intervene.

As a result, monsters like Colorado's Duane
Morrison or Pennsylvania's Charles Roberts, and a
host of others have committed mayhem, courtesy of
gun-control fanatics who pressured Congress and
state legislatures to pass such statutes.

The exception is Luke Woodham, who shot up
Mississippi's Pearl High School in 1997 after
slitting his mother's throat. Midway through his
spree, Woodham encountered Vice Principal Joel
Myrick, who had rushed to his car to retrieve a
.45-caliber pistol. Myrick aimed the gun at
Woodham's head and held him until police arrived.

You read little about Myrick's heroism, and less
about his handgun, in the press.

After the Pennsylvania attack on an Amish school
in Lancaster County, anti-gun Gov. Ed Rendell had
a remarkable moment of candor when he admitted
that tougher gun laws would not have stopped the gunman.

"You can make all the changes you want," Rendell
said, "but you can never stop a random act of
violence by someone intent on taking his own life."

His remarks were largely ignored because nobody
wants to admit that Rendell is right about this,
same as they overlooked Myrick and his gun. Such
facts don't fit the anti-gun agenda.

It is time to reconsider gun-free school zone
laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws
foster. Inflexible regulations aimed at keeping
kids safe also place teachers in jeopardy.

A teacher in Lacey, Wash., was recently suspended
for having a gun in her purse. Licensed to carry,
she was afraid of her estranged husband, against
whom she has a domestic violence protection
order, and has filed for divorce. But now she's
in trouble, allegedly victimized by her spouse and again by the law.

We can no longer afford the empty-headed utopian
illusion that such statutes keep anyone safe,
because they don't. Like other restrictive gun
control measures, this one has been a monumental
failure, and it is literally killing our children.

Nobody is suggesting that all teachers arm
themselves, but scrapping the law restores that
option. School massacres didn't happen in the
days when high schools had rifle teams, and when
it was common in the fall to find both teachers
and students with rifles or shotguns locked in
their cars. That was before "gun" became a
four-letter word among self-described
"progressive liberals" who championed gun-free zones.

If what's happening at schools today is
"progress," we might be better off -- and a lot
of students would still be alive -- if we were
back in those unenlightened days when school kids
riding down country roads with .22 rifles across
their bicycle handlebars alarmed nobody.

In the wake of our most recent school shootings,
reaction from the gun control crowd has been
pathetic. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke
blustered that "we need to do something about
that." He suggested a national dialogue, as if
more talk will stop suicidal maniacs.

His bunch has done enough already, with the help
of gun-grabbing congressional demagogues such as
Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi
and their far-left colleagues, and an
all-too-cooperative "mainstream" press. They gave
us a law that leaves our children and their
teachers vulnerable to the whims of any nutball looking for 15 minutes of fame.

Restrictive gun laws do not prevent crime and the
notion of a gun-free school zone is a myth. More
restrictions on law-abiding citizens will never
stop people like Morrison or Roberts who proved
yet again that feel-good laws have defrauded
American citizens, and especially our children, of genuine safety.

Alan Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (
www.ccrkba.org). Dave
Workman is the senior editor of Gun Week,
published by the Second Amendment Foundation (

© 2006 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.


Thursday, October 05, 2006

For my 100th Post, I offer this bit of GREAT News for Gun Owners

Vitter Amendment Becomes Law, McCarthy Gun Grab Is Dead
-- Thanks for all your hard work!

-- "Oh s---! We got a lot of postcards and e-mails from GOA members." -- As stated by a Congressional office to GOA --

I thought I'd pass this on. If you want to read the whole thing, click on the title (you know, the large text that starts out "For my 100th Post...) and it will take you to the article on GOA's web page. Personally, I think this is FANTASTIC news! I'm glad it could be the 100th article on my blog.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Bible-Spouting Group Plans to Picket Amish Funerals

Dear Rev. Phelps, FYI, God doesn't hate "fags." God hates hate mongering old codgers who don't really understand him, LIKE YOU!!

Bible-Spouting Group Plans to Picket Amish Funerals
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 04, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A Kansas-based group that says "God hates fags" plans to picket the funerals of the Amish girls killed by a disturbed man in Lancaster County, Pa.

The Westboro Baptist Church -- described as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League -- has made a name for itself by picketing the funerals of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. The troops are dying as punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality, the group says.

The Westboro group says the Amish school girls were "killed by a madman in punishment for Gov. Ed Rendell's blasphemous sins against Westboro Baptist Church.

"Gov. Ed Rendell -- speaking and acting in his official capacity to bind the State of Pennsylvania -- slandered and mocked and ridiculed and condemned Westboro Baptist Church on national Fox TV," the group says on its website.

"Rendell also revealed a conspiracy to employ the State's police powers to destroy WBC in order to silence WBC's Gospel message. Co-conspirators identified by Rendell included state officials, citizens, lawyers, legislators and media," the website says.

Westboro Baptist Church said it is "continuing to pray for even worse punishment upon Pennsylvania."

A number of states have passed laws to keep groups like Westboro away from grieving families at funerals, but last month, a federal judge ruled that a Kentucky law barring protests within 300 feet of military funerals and memorial services is too broad and may not be enforced.

In other developments, the man who shot and killed five Amish schoolgirls apparently planned to sexually abuse them first, investigators said. But he apparently didn't get a chance: Charles Carl Roberts IV killed himself when police arrived on the scene.

Suicide notes left by Roberts indicate he was dreaming of molesting girls. He reportedly told his wife he had molested two young relatives 20 years ago - and wanted to do it again.

"It's very possible that he intended to victimize these children in many ways prior to executing them and killing himself," State Police Commissioner Jeffrey Miller said on Tuesday.

Roberts also indicated he was anguished over the death of a daughter who died shortly after birth nine years ago. In his notes, he said he was "filled with so much hate" and "unimaginable emptiness," but everyone who knew him said they never saw signs of his psychological distress.

And I have a personal note to any psycho lame ass would be homicidal killer out there. If you're considering going to a school or church, and grabbing some hostages, could you please consider the WestBoro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas? They could use a good cleaning.


In a remarkable moment of candor, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell today acknowledged what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been saying for years: Stronger gun laws could not have prevented the horrible shooting yesterday at the Amish school in Lancaster County.

Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, “I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control” during a live press conference. But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack, noting, “You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.”

“Welcome to the party, Gov. Rendell,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has been wringing its hands and declaring that ‘somebody has got to do something,’ we have consistently maintained that such crimes are impossible to predict, and equally impossible to prevent with passage of yet another gun law. And finally, Gov. Rendell agrees with us.

“The gunman had no criminal or mental health background,” Gottlieb said, “so he would pass any criminal background check. His family and friends described him as a loving family man. Nobody saw this coming.

“This shooting, and the ones last week in Colorado and Wisconsin, and every school shooting in the past ten years all had one thing in common,” he observed. “They all happened in so-called ‘gun-free school zones,’ where students and adult staff are essentially helpless.

“Gun control extremism has disarmed the wrong people and created risk-free environments for those who would commit murder and mayhem,” Gottlieb said. “It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that gun control and gun-free zones will keep children safe. Like all other gun control laws, this one has been a monumental failure, and it is literally killing our children.

“If it saves the life of just one child,” Gottlieb concluded, “abolishing such laws will be worth the effort.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Updated Right-To-Carry Fact sheet

The following is the updated Right-To-Carry Fact Sheet, by way of Gun Issues on Yahoo Groups.

More Guns, Less Crime

Violent crime hit an all-time high in 1991. Since then, "gun control" laws have been rolled back, the number of privately-owned guns has risen to an all-time high, and violent crime has dropped to a 30-year low.

More Guns. The number of privately-owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates there were about 215 million guns in 19991; the National Academy of Sciences puts the 1999 figure at 258 million2. The number of new guns each year averages about 4.5 million (about 2%).3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions from 1994-2004.4 The FBI reports that there were 61.6 million approved NICS transactions from Nov. 30, 1998 through the end of 2005, and that the annual number of transactions increased 2.4% between 2003-2004 and 3.1% between 2004-2005.5

More Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (296 million), and rises about 1% annually,6 and numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.7 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,8 probably because of some respondents' concerns about "gun control," perhaps a residual effect of the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

More Right-to-Carry. The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 40 today.9 In 2005, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 22%, murder by 30%, robbery by 46%, and aggravated assault by 12%.10

Less "Gun Control." Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act's waiting period on handgun sales expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states concurrently or thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.11

Less Crime. The FBI reports that the nation's total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and estimates that it rose 1% in 2005.12 (By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that "at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973," when the first such survey was conducted.14)

According to the FBI, in 2005 the nation's violent crime rates were significantly lower than they were in 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high. In 2005, total violent crime was lower by 38%, murder by 43%, rape by 25%, robbery by 48%, and aggravated assault by 33%.

During 2004-2005, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1976. For the last seven years, the murder rate (between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965.13 Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.

15 Notes:
1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
3. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. FBI, "NICS Operations 2005," Jan. 2006
6. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.xls).
7. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
8. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
9. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within
10. FBI, Crime in the United States 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl05.xls) for state crime statistics.
11. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
12. FBI, Crime in the United States 2005, Table 4,
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl04.xls) and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/).
13. Ibid. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime
14. BJS, "Criminal Victimization 2005," (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf).
15. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Research/Koper_aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).

What does all this stuff above say? Well, kiddies, it says that apparently Dr. Lott was correct. More Guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians DOES equal less crime!

Amazing isn't it.