Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Jeff Soyer finds another article, this one in the Roanoke Times, that follows the same pattern I’ve been mentioning here before. As I mentioned in Jeff’s comments:

I have a theory that all these editorials and letters to the editor are part of a coordinated campaign of astroturfing on the part of our opponents. I don’t have much evidence for this, but it seems to me that all of these have been following the same pattern. It’s like someone took a template and played it out over and over with only slight variations. I just happen to feel that real people have different ways of approaching an argument. I have no doubt there are gunnies out there who believe this stuff, but every one of their letters follows the same template? Color me skeptical.

Here’s another thing that raises my level of suspicion. I think they might have screwed up with this one by trying too hard:

High-capacity magazine ban. I own a Super Nine, or high-capacity 9mm. It can carry 16 rounds, plus one. It never seemed inappropriate, until now. Even for personal defense, a simple eight-round magazine would be fine. Also, a high-capacity magazine ban for all weapons would negate the need for a gun ban.

I have never heard of any 9mm pistol called the “Super Nine”. Has anyone else? There’s a Super 90, but that’s a tactical shotgun. Saying he carries a gun that doesn’t exist [See SayUncle’s comments below] is more evidence that either a lot of these people are lying sacks of shit, or this is, in fact, a coordinated astroturfing campaign by our opponents. What say you all? I won’t feel offended if you tell me it’s time to put away the tin foil hat.

If all you want are reasonable gun laws, then why are you trying to hard to preserve Washington D.C.’s total gun prohibition, and doing everything to discredit the notion that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

You guys are so lucky to have a sympathetic media who is happy not to ask these questions.

This article on Gazette.net is a great example of why there can’t be any reasonable dialog with anti-gun people:

‘‘We want to open the dialogue,” Lucas said. ‘‘It seems that no one wants to talk about this. I’d like to see action by our legislators that really reflect the will of the people.”

Sevier insisted the demonstration was not an anti-gun rally and that it included people of all political stripes. However, she said she personally would like to see new laws requiring background checks for people who want to buy handguns and a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

‘‘We are not anti-gun,” she said. ‘‘We just want there to be reasonable regulations on who can have a gun in this country.”

No, we’re not anti-gun at all. You’re all just paranoid! If this woman gets her way, my collection will be exactly four guns, and ironically, the four they won’t get are my two most powerful rifles, my shotgun, and the most powerful pistol I own.

They at least admit to not being experts on guns control, and clearly they know nothing about our guns laws or guns themselves, so the real question is why anyone would pay any attention to what they have to say?

Yesterday, we talked about Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign renewing the group’s push to remove the Tiahrt Amendment. Michael Sullivan, director of the ATF, is running this editorial in several national papers.

Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement.

So why exactly are the Brady’s so against the Tiahrt Amendment, when law enforcement has said it’s not getting in the way of them catching criminals? Because being able to misrepresent trace data to the public was a great political tool for them to use.

Hat Tip: Dave Hardy

Dave Hardy has the Brady Campaign wish list. It’s in their latest press release. I’ve decided to give this a hearty fisking, in the hopes that its google rank propel it to such heights, that every googler on the subject will know of the crap contained within. Let’s get started.

Pass the NICS Improvement Act, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy. This legislation provides funding incentives for states to provide appropriate records to strengthen the information in NICS.

I might not oppose this, but not McCarthy’s bill. How about we gun owners get a few things is return if this is so important?

Require background checks for all gun sales, not just those from federally licensed dealers.

We have it in Pennsylvania. It doesn’t work. If it’s so effective, why is your group donating so much time, money, and effort to get another useless control passed, one-gun-a-month? None of this would have stopped either of these two nutballs.

Rescind the requirement requiring that records of Brady background checks be destroyed within 24 hours of purchase approval.

And this helps with stopping crazy people from getting guns how exactly? In the case of these two killers, would it help that we could go back and see “Yep, they passed the background check”. We already know that!

Impose a waiting period under the Brady Law, to allow time to do accurate and complete review of appropriate records.

The VT nutcase bought his guns months in advance. He even got two of them, having managed to overcome Virginia’s one-gun-per-month law. We can search criminal and mental health records instantly. If those records weren’t checked, it’s because they aren’t there. More time isn’t going to help.

Reinstate the Federal ban on ammunition magazines of larger than 10 rounds that expired along with the Federal assault weapons ban in 2004, and pass a ban on military-style assault weapons.

It takes two seconds to change a magazine. The VT nutcase had to have reloaded 12 times in order to fire as many rounds as he did. Would it have mattered if he had to reload 6 more times? He did not use an assault weapon. He used an ordinary pistol. The K.C. nutball killer used an M1 Carbine, which is legal even in the most restrictive states, and isn’t considered an “assault weapon” by anybody. Does it make sense to advocate a ban that’s based solely on cosmetic features rather than function?

Repeal the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment,” which as an annual appropriations rider bars the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from sharing data on the sources of guns used in crimes.

The ATF themselves have stated that using this trace data to draw general conclusions about guns used in crime is a fools errand. The President of the Fraternal Order of Police has also come out against trace data being available for reasons other than criminal investigations. What does it say about the Brady Campaign, that they want trace data, which two law enforcement groups have said can interfere with investigating gun use and gun trafficking by criminals, just because it’s a useful tool for harassing lawful gun dealers and honest gun owners?

Require that new semi-automatic handguns be equipped with technology to allow police to quickly match shell casings found at a crime scene to the handgun from which they were fired. This technology, known as”microstamping,” would enhance law enforcement’s ability to rapidly solve gun crimes.”

This technology is being pushed by anti-gun groups with very little real world evidence that it even works. Criminals regularly file serial numbers off guns to make them more difficult to trace. Ballistic fingerprinting and micro-stamps wear and change over time, and are easily circumvented. They also have no impact on the existing supply of firearms. This type of law has exactly one purpose: to drive up the price of firearms and ammunition, so fewer people particulate in the shooting sport, and fewer people fight the Brady’s politically.

So there we have a laundry list. No new ideas really. It’s the same load of crap we’ve been hearing from the anti-gun groups for years.

I was watching Nightline last night, and they ran a story of people who were cashing in on the Virginia Tech tragedy in various ways, such as registering domains like www.vatechlawsuit.com, and the like.  Of course, they seem to have overlooked a pretty big example of this.

 According to Paul Helmke:

It’s long past time to have a serious national conversation about gun violence. It’s past time for us to agree that something is wrong when an individual with such obvious signs of instability can legally arm himself with the extraordinary firepower necessary to murder so many innocent people. Something is wrong when thirty-two people die from gun violence inflicted by others, not just at Virginia Tech on April 16, but every day in this country. Obviously, what we’re doing now is not working.

A Walther P22 is extraordinary firepower?  A Glock 19 is extraordinary firepower?   These are common guns.  The Glock 19 is probably the second most common police sidearm (after the Glock 17).  It fires a 9mm cartridge, which is so powerful the military wants to go back to the .45ACP because it lacks stopping power.  The P22 is a target pistol, firing the .22LR cartridge, the most common cartridge in the world.  Guns the Brady’s swear up and down they don’t want to ban.

Some people don’t want to have this conversation. They’re content to repeat platitudes, make excuses, nitpick proposals, and postpone taking action. They accuse the rest of us of “politicizing” the issue, while they hide behind the gun lobby’s talking points.

I don’t blame you for politicizing, as we were all doing that.  I blame you for trying to cash in on it.

It is not “politicizing” the tragedy to ask what we can do to make ourselves and our families safe from gun violence. When politicians and pundits deny that a problem exists and that is susceptible to policy revisions and cling to their ideological fenceposts instead of coming to the table with honest ideas, it is they who must stop the political posturing. They have to ask themselves how they can help keep our communities and our schools safe.

So Brady’s what is your honest idea?  What prescription would have stopped this?  The killer had no previous criminal record.  Background checks did not stop him.  A waiting period would not have stopped him, he obtained his guns a month ago.  Virginia’s one gun a month law did not stop him.  Virginia Tech’s prohibition of weapons on campus did not stop him.  What do you think would have?  It’s not honest to just declare you’re not “politicizing” and others are.   I ask again: What gun control law do you propose would have stopped this deranged killer?

I know there are Brady Campaign people that sometimes read this blog.  I don’t honestly fault you guys all that much for covering the tragedy at Virginia Tech, or even for making policy implications around it.  I certainly saw a lot of people on our side doing the same.  But come on, changing your web site to prominently feature a “Donate Now!” button is pretty low.

It would be one thing to raise some money to donate to the victims.  It’s another to raise money for your organization and cause by exploiting a tragedy.