Attention Homicidalists!

I'm curious... how come, when you decide to go out with a few semi-automatic bangs, gun shows aren't a common choice of venue?

Why, oh why, must it always be some "gun-free zone"?

National Guard Armory? Nope.
Local Police HQ? Nuh-uh! (Are you nuts, they'll shoot ME!)
Local outdoorsman hunt club? hahahaha

No, it's churches, universities, and other SAFE places (no one ever says for whom they're safe, but I think we're starting to get an idea.)

When will the administrators and legislators decide that it's alright for the populace to defend ourselves (I read somewhere about "keeping and bearing arms", but what do I know)?

How many more must imitate ducks at the county fair shooting gallery?

Sigh.

2nd Amendment Up for Review

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case about the District of Columbia's personal handgun ban.

For the past 31 years, DC has banned private ownership of handguns. In CNN's story, Police Chief Cathy Lanier is quoted as saying, "I see the results of gun violence every day. The weakening of the district's gun law will inevitably lead to an increase in injury, and worse, death."

So, here's my question.

If guns are banned in DC, then... how are those gun deaths occurring? You mean, people are breaking the law??? What are those people called.... oh yes, Criminals. So apparently, the people using guns are the ones who are already predisposed to breaking the law. And the law-abiding ones aren't using guns.

And can't defend themselves.

Is the gun ban working?

I invite you to take a look at these statistics. DC is a small area. Very small. Look at all those murders, and other crimes. Rapes (last thing a woman needs when she's being raped is a handgun...), burglaries (can you imagine how relieved burglars are to know that the homeowners have NO defense?), etc...

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this case. We can only hope that they don't parse "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... those of us out in the hinterland, even those educated at government indoctrination centers, can understand the simplicity of those words.

Previous postings on this subject: "Gun Control" and "I Mourn".

Too Secure

At work, we (and by "we", I mean "I") often have a saying that we've secured ourselves into ineffectiveness. Meaning, our computers are locked down so tightly, we can hardly get anything accomplished. Downloading photos from the official camera can take 2-3 people, different computers, and utilization of a compact disc instead of the super-easy USB cord accompanying the camera.

And let's not explore the internet lockdown.

So, along the lines of making us "too secure", please take a moment and read this posting.

Gun Control

From the AP:
Mayor Shot Dead

Apparently, in a mob hit, someone walked right up to the Mayor and shot him at point-blank range.

In Japan.

Where handguns are strictly banned.

(Caveat - yes, the murder rate with handguns is less there, but I attribute that to the culture difference.)

So, if we can just ban and confiscate all the handguns... there will be no more murders.

Right.


I post this as I saw on another blog someone commented that the idea of Gun Control is to ban all the guns, and then there will be no more deaths, like in Japan. Well, ironically, today... a Japanese Mayor was shot by a handgun.

Because CRIMINALS don't follow the laws ANYWAY!!!!

I Mourn

Drug-Free Zones... aren't.

Smoke-Free Zones... aren't.

No-Wake Zones... nope.



Gun-Free Zones... sigh. Sadly, no.

In all cases, people violate the law. Laws have always been violated, thus the need for police.

The Massacre at Virginia Tech is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the lives lost. I mourn for them. Young folks cut down in their prime. Dreams unfulfilled. The repercussions rippling throughout familes, friends, fellow students... the nation.

It is another tragedy. We have rendered ourselves meek. There are a few notable stories where people resisted.

I wonder what the story would have been like if one other person had had a gun. You know the headlines: "Hero Stops Mad Gunman." Part of our society cries out for gun control, yet when the example of an armed populace is demonstrated by a criminal being stopped... we all applaud.

Mr. Cho violated the Gun-Free Zone. He will not be punished, as he is dead. Those students who abided by the Gun-Free Zone were punished, with their deaths.

We remove from ourselves not just the ability, but the will to self-defend. That's the true insidious nature of such bans on guns. It's because, as a society, we are collectively giving over our defense, in toto, to someone else. We surrender before the first shot is fired.

And the ultimate fallacy is that a criminal will violate the law anyway, so the only ones affected by the bans are those who end up dead because they were disarmed.


And because we've removed our will to self-defend, we don't even try. Look around your office, your home... how many weapons do you see? (Those of you in the police or military, it's no fair counting your side-arms.) I count quite a few, without walking into the kitchen - which is a veritable bazaar of weapons - and I can imagine that if properly motivated, I could come up with a few more.

But we have removed the will to self-defend, and so we don't try so hard. A bullet in the back of Mr. Cho's skull would have done wonders. So would a fire extinguisher, lots of big heavy textbooks, desks, whatever. Not deriding those who died or were wounded... their loss is a tragedy.

I mourn. I mourn for all the loss. The senselessness of it all.

I mourn that there wasn't one more gun