2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix AZ

For anyone not already aware, registration is open for the 2008 GRPC (Gun Rights Policy Conference). I'm already registered & plan to attend. It is scheduled to take place in Phoenix, Arizona on the dates of September 26, 27, & 28, 2008 (Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday morning). It will take place in the Sheraton Crescent Hotel, located at 2620 W Dunlap Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85021. Remember that the event is completely free, so even if you have never been to such an event I highly encourage you to give it a try. As an extra bonus you'll receive free books & other materials, enjoy a free luncheon on Saturday, free receptions Fri & Sat evening, as well as some free snacks during snack breaks. So if for nothing else, show up for the free food & books. How can you pass up on free materials, education/entertainment, & food?

The 2008 Agenda is not yet ready for publication, but to get an idea of what you can expect you can take a look at the 2007 Agenda. I am very much looking forward to attending, I hope to see you there!

Dave Workman article in favor of removing weapon ban in National Parks

Dave Workman has written a very good article in favor of removing the current weapon ban in National Parks.

". . . In the years between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service statistics.

Apparently opponents of removing the ban against loaded operable weapons don't feel there is enough probability of attack to warrant allowing people to have the choice to arm themselves for self defense while in National Parks because the risk of attack by man or beast while in National Forests is lower than while visiting the top 50 most dangerous cities of our Nation. I bet that at least some of the nearly 2000 National Park victims mentioned above might have wished they had some means of self defense with them when they were attacked by criminals who ignored the gun ban. It probably mattered to most of them, and it certainly matters to me.

You see, our Bill of Rights were written to protect the preexisting rights (natural or God given, depending on your religious view) of the few against the tyranny of the many. Even if 51% of the population and our congress were to decide that nobody should be allowed to have free speech, to worship as they please, or to BEAR arms in self defense whether that be in their homes, in schools, or in National Parks, the preexisting rights of the few would be protected against the tyranny of the many. The 2nd Amendment may be an inconvenient truth to those against guns, but the protection does exist, so they might as well get used to it.

People against the Marines being able to recruit?

It is a bit ironic if not absolutely reprehensible that these folks are using the very free speech protected by the Americans who have sacrificed their lives to protect our Country during times of war against the recruiting office of the Marines. Nobody should be prevented from being able to learn about an excellent organization like the Marines simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born & raised in Berkeley California. It's not like anyone gets to choose their birth parents so why should we hold that against them by preventing them from being able to learn about the Marines? Semper Fi. H/T to Say Uncle.

Interesting article profiling individuals both for & against the DC gun ban

An interesting article. It profiles the individuals both for & against the DC ban against handguns & functional rifles in the home, including the plaintiffs of the Heller case fighting the ban scheduled to heard in the Supreme Court next Tuesday March 18th, & those funding the legal costs. It does appear to have at least a slight bent in favor of the Ban, but overall appears to at least be attempting to be fair & balanced. Below is a small section from the article about Gillian St. Lawrence (pictured above), one of the plaintiffs of in the original case against the DC gun ban:

"In 2000 St. Lawrence started the process of registering a shotgun. It took two years before she completed background checks, filled out police-department paperwork, bought the shotgun, and fitted it with the blue plastic device that disables it until it’s unlocked . . . St. Lawrence adds, “People break into houses around here all the time.” She alone is licensed to use the shotgun—one person per firearm under DC law.

“It’s Paul’s job to call the police,” she says. “It’s my job to use it.”

If she can unlock the trigger in time.

Boy given detention for wearing a gun image on his shirt

A 1st Amendment freedom of speech lawsuit is currently pending over Donald Miller III, a High School Freshman, being told he must turn his shirt inside out, and then given a detention for refusing to comply. Yet another school "Zero Tolerance=Zero Thought Policy" related to images of guns. The shirt was a gift to Donald from his Uncle, Brian Souders, who purchased the shirt on his base Post Exchange just before he was deployed to Iraq, and Donald was wearing it in support of his Uncle & the US Military.

All I can say is, where do I get myself one of these shirts? If you know where I can find one please leave a comment or send an e-mail. It has an image of a gun on the front & back. It also has the following wording: "Volunteer Homeland Security" on the front, and "Special issue - Resident - Lifetime License - United States Terrorist Hunting Permit - Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner - No Bag Limit." on the back.

You can read more details at Fox, Lancasteronline, or Worldnetdaily.

Update 1: I'd like to thank ar15.com member SonOfNorway for letting me know where we can get our own terrorist hunting permit shirt. I think I'll buy some for myself & my children.

Listen to something other than Music on your iPod

Do you ever get tired of listening to music on your mp3 player regardless of whether you use an Apple iPod or any other brand of mp3 player? Well I have the perfect solution for you - join me in listening to gun rights podcasts. Yes music is nice, but I now find myself listening to podcasts more often than music, at least when I have not yet run out of new episodes of gun rights podcasts to listen to.

Look for the link list on the right hand side of this site titled "Gun Rights Podcasts" for links to some of my favorites. If you know of others that I am missing please comment or send me an e-mail & I'll add them to my list. In addition to being able to access the podcasts directly via their linked websites most are also available via iTunes (download & use for free on both the PC & Mac platform). You can subscribe to all of your favorite podcasts & iTunes will auto download the newest episodes as they become available. You can then listen on your PC or off-line via your favorite mp3 player.

Off-line listening makes for a great way to make your morning exercise more interesting or to kill time while waiting to renew your drivers license at the local DMV.

Cam's NRA News nightly radio show is not yet available as a podcast although you can listen live on the internet every weeknight from 9PM to 12AM Eastern Time (6PM to 9PM Pacific) & also 24 hrs a day to an archive of the previous show between the live shows.

CCRKBA press release on Hero Yitzhak Dadon

The CCRKBA issued a press release relating to hero Yitzhak Dadon, an armed student who ended the rampage of an armed murderer who was planning on committing mass murder at his school on Thursday March 6th (The murderer was successful at killing 8 & wounding 9 before the armed student stopped him, no telling exactly how many additional murders were prevented). How did he end it? With two well aimed bullets from his gun. Yes, an armed student in the right place at the right time at a school that does not have a "gun free zone" policy can stop a murder rampage before Police can even arrive on the scene. For some reason the US mainstream press does not want you to know that small tidbit of information since they are mysteriously leaving it out of all of the news reports. Although the armed student did stop the terrorist rampage early by knocking him down, reports indicate that it was additional shots of an Israeli soldier who arrived later on the scene that finished him off.

From CCRKBA:

NEWS RELEASE

Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
CCRKBA SAYS PRESS PURPOSELY DOWNPLAYS KEY ROLE OF ARMED STUDENT IN JERUSALEM

For Immediate Release: March 7, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – An armed student at Jerusalem’s Mercaz Haray seminary played a crucial role in stopping a gun-wielding terrorist Thursday, but the American press is downplaying his heroism because it proves that armed students can stop campus gunmen, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Yitzhak Dadon, 40, was described as “a private citizen who had a gun license and was able to shoot the gunman with his pistol” by reporter Etgar Lefkovitz with the Jerusalem Post. However, many news agencies in the United States are downplaying Dadon’s decisive role in the incident.

Yitzhak Dadon is a hero,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and he is living proof that armed students have a place on college campuses. Thankfully, his quick action was reported by the international press, including Mr. Lefkovitz, so unlike incidents here in the United States where the press was able to completely ignore the actions of armed students or teachers, the truth about this incident will not be suppressed.

Mr. Dadon is not going to become a victim of this conspiracy of silence,” Gottlieb continued. “Elitist American college administrators, the national press, nor anti-gun politicians can sweep this incident under their rug.”

Internationally published reports say Dadon studies at the yeshiva, and had his pistol when the shooting erupted. When the gunman emerged from a library, Dadon reportedly shot him twice in the head. The gunman was subsequently shot by the off-duty soldier.

Yitzhak Dadon’s apparently well-placed bullets interrupted a rampage,” Gottlieb said. “What a pity that someone like Mr. Dadon was not in class last April at Virginia Tech. What a tragedy that anti-gun extremism would keep him from attending class at Northern Illinois University. He would never be allowed to teach at Columbine High School, hold a job at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, or go shopping at Omaha’s Westroads Mall.

America’s acquiescence to anti-gun hysteria has led to one tragedy after another,” Gottlieb stated. “This disastrous policy has given us nothing but broken hearts and body counts, and it’s got to end. The heroism of an armed Israeli seminary student halfway across the world sends a message that we needn’t submit to murder in victim disarmament zones. That’s why his actions are getting such short shrift from America’s press. It’s a story they are loathe to report because it affirms a philosophy of self-reliance that they despise.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Handgun saves boy from Rabid Mountain Lion

Paul Schalow, a lucky 10 year old El Mirage AZ boy & other family members were saved from a rabid Mountain Lion attack in an Arizona National Forest near Cave Creek AZ on Saturday March 8th, thanks to the fact that his uncle was carrying a gun. Here are reports from the Arizona Republic, Fox, CNN, & NBC.

In this video interview Paul Schalow describes it as the Mountain Lion just sneaking up on them while they were on a lunch break after spending some time riding ATV's near Bloody Basin Road and Sheep Bridge, everyone yelled "don't move, don't move", the mountain lion took a swipe at the boy, his uncle shot it, the Mountain lion got "wobbly" - started to walk away, then turned to attack again. A 2nd shot then did the trick dropping the Mountain Lion. The family reported the incident to the Arizona Game & Fish Department. Testing confirmed that the Mountain Lion did in fact have Rabies.

As a side note here is a list of other confirmed Cougar attacks I found while looking for this news story.

It is interesting to note that if this had happened in a National Park instead of in a National Forest under current National Park regulations his uncle would not have been allowed to have a fully assembled, loaded, non trigger locked gun. By the time his Uncle would have had time to re-assemble or unlock his gun, load it, & shoot the Mountain lion, who knows how much carnage the Mountain Lion could have unleashed before his Uncle was ready to shoot the rabid Cougar.

I guess these National Park Retirees would have preferred that the boy fight back with his keys. "Place keys in between fingers - scratch at Mountain Lion's face"

Women & Weaponry Story on CNN

Nice news story on Women & Weaponry by CNN. Discusses current trend on increasing number of Women getting gun safety & self defense training as well as getting licenses to carry a concealed handgun for defense of themselves & their family. Excellent news and a very well done article.

Many anti gun folks think 21 year old students are morons!

Pima County Sheriff Dupnik in this opinion piece does not have a high opinion of the intelligence of 21 & older College students who have gone through the process to obtain a CCW permit:

". . . if more than one student has a concealed weapon, how is it possible to determine which individuals are involved in the attack and which ones are trying to stop it?"

Let's see here - one murderer is randomly murdering unarmed students. One or more ccw permit holders are shooting at the murderer. It's just too complicated for the mind of a 21 year old student to comprehend! /End Sarcasm.

"The danger of crossfire and unintentional victims is multiplied exponentially."

That argument assumes that crossfire between a bad guy & a good guy is somehow worse than an armed murderer walking the halls shooting at everyone without opposition. If I were an unarmed student in a room with an armed murderer, I'd much prefer that the murderer be occupied in a gun fight with another armed student than for the murderer to have nothing better to do than continue shooting everyone in the room one by one without opposition.

"Imagine the confusion that will ensue when law enforcement arrives at an active shooter situation, with unconfirmed information about who the suspect is or even how many there are, and these same officers encounter multiple individuals with guns."

Oh I feel so sorry for the poor confused Police Officers. /End Sarcasm. Besides insulting the intelligence level of our fine Police Officers this is not a valid argument as there is not a single example of this made up scenario. Scenarios I describe below do have multiple examples to back them up (1: Pearl Mississippi, 2: Utah Trolley Square Mall).

1. According to FBI statistics most "gun fights" last less than 10 seconds. Police arrival times average around 15 minutes. You do the math. Even in a fast Police response scenario of say 5 minutes (faster than most), an event where an armed adult already on the scene engages the murderer in a gun fight will likely be over well before the Police arrive. Such an adult would likely either be victorious in ending the carnage before Police arrive or will be among the victim count of the murderer lying on the floor.
   
2. If the Police arrive & see two or more people in a "gun fight" they will simply demand that they all drop their weapons. The "good guys/galls" will obey officer orders. The murderer will either a) shoot him or herself, b) run, or c) start shooting at the officers. I think our fine Professional Officers will be able to figure out who they need to shoot at.
   

"Think back to Oct. 28, 2002, when our own community was rocked by a shooting by University of Arizona College of Nursing student Robert Flores, who shot and killed three nursing professors - Robin Rogers, Barbara Monroe and Cheryl McGaffic - before turning the gun on himself."

Thanks for making my case - simply placing a sign on the wall that says "Gun Free Zone" does not make it so. It is a Utopian pipe dream that has been proven to be a folly. Disarming Americans does not make them more safe, no matter how many made up scenarios you make up without providing any evidence to back them up.

Goodbye Rebecca Aguilar: Good Riddance.

All I can say is don't let the door hit you on the way out. Actually it's fine with me if it hits you on the way out, I really don't care either way, so long as I never have to see your face doing an interview on Fox again. Thank you Fox, good decision to fire her - what she did was inexcusable. It turns out that Fox had only been keeping her around on paid suspension since the incident so that they could exercise the option in her contract to fire her at the half way point of her 2 year contract on exactly March 6th 2008.

"I just think it's really sad that I gave this company 14 years and I did about 6,000 interviews," Aguilar said. "And now I'm out of a job because of one interview? It's like in one swoop it ruined my reputation. It ruined my name."

No, YOU ruined your name Rebecca. Don't try to blame your ruin on anybody other than yourself or you will fail to learn any lesson from your mistake.

AZ SB 1214 made the NY Times

AZ SB 1214 made the NY Times.

Oh how terrible! College & University Staff members with a CCW permit could bring guns on campus! /End Sarcasm

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, . . . said 15 states were considering legislation that would authorize or make it easier for people to carry guns on school or college campuses under certain conditions. Those states include Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Virginia, according to the center, but it considers the Arizona proposal particularly egregious because it would not only allow students and faculty to carry such weapons, but staff members as well.

Do NOT support AZ Fraternal Order of Police

First of all, let me specify that I have great respect for the majority of Police Officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis for all of us, and I do have friends who are Police Officers. Not all Police Officers are members of an FOP organization, and not all members of the AZ FOP are against AZ SB 1214. With that out of the way, I'll continue:

Last night I received my annual phone call from the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police requesting my usual annual donation. Due to the fact that I had only recently in ASTONISHMENT listened to the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Soller speak AGAINST Arizona SB 1214 on behalf of the AZ FOP on Feb 18th, in so doing trampling under foot the preexisting but Second Amendment PROTECTED Right to bear arms of all law abiding Arizona Citizens, I respectfully declined their request, and stated my reasoning for their record.

Bryan Soller's testimony against SB 1214 took place at the Feb 18th, 2008 Arizona Senate Judiciary Hearing. His testimony begins at the 0hr:40min:10sec mark of the archived video. Or you can listen to the audio of just his testimony in mp3 format: Bryan_Soller.mp3. During his testimony he also answered questions from members of the AZ Senate Judiciary Committee: Senator Johnson, Senator Gould, and Committee Chairman: Senator Gray.

Until the AZ FOP reverses this stance against the Constitution that its members have all sworn to protect, I can in no way continue to support it. If the organization will reverse its current stance, then I will gladly resume contributions. I urge any of you who are in favor of protecting your right to bear arms to contact your local FOP organization & find out exactly how they stand on the critical issues relating to the 2nd Amendment before you give any further donations.

Below is an E-mail that I sent to AZ FOP President Bryan Soller via the e-mail address listed on their site. If I receive a response I'll post it here as an update:

As a long time supporter of the Arizona FOP & Police Officers in general I was astonished to sit in the Senate Judiciary Hearing on Monday Feb 18th & hear you testify against SB 1214 on behalf of the entire Arizona FOP, joining with the Chiefs of Police in essentially saying that only the Police & Criminals should be allowed to be armed in Arizona school "gun free zones" (yes, I know criminals can only be armed while breaking the law, but surprise - that's what criminals & crazies do), essentially stating that law abiding American Citizens who are not Police Officers do not deserve their 2nd Amendment protected right to bear arms for use in defense of themselves & their families or friends while in so-called "gun free zones". The speeches of yourself & those of the Chiefs of Police reminded me a bit of Gorge Orwell's "Animal Farm" where a certain class of the animals in charge changed the Bill of Rights to read "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"

One question I have is the following - who was involved in the decision for AZ FOP to be officially against SB 1214? Was it brought to a vote of the entire Arizona FOP membership, or was it simply a vote of the Arizona FOP board members?

Police Officers carry weapons for protection of themselves, their families, and the community, & many choose to have their weapon with them at all times on duty or off, at home or while visiting a school. Why should I be required to rely only on my cell phone & 911 with a response time of 3 to 15 minutes while I'm in a so-called "gun free zone"? When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away, so by the time Police arrive all that may be left to do is make chalk lines & gather evidence. I carry my weapon everywhere but gun free zones because it is easier than carrying a Police Officer. In an emergency I will dial 911 to request assistance, but if the Police are not able to arrive in time I will protect my family myself the best I can with the most effective tools at my disposal. If I happen to be in a "gun free zone" the only tool I'll have is a MOP or a BROOM from the janitorial closet. I've always thought it is unwise to bring a MOP to a gunfight, but that's just my opinion. I'm the true first responder to a situation that happens to me, Police will arrive 2nd.

I'm not expecting to change your mind on this issue, but I did want to share with you the viewpoint of myself and many of my fellow citizens who support the Bill of Rights. I have a high respect for Police Officers, and have multiple friends who are (2 are officers for the City of Peoria, 1 for City of Surprise, and 1 AZ DPS officer). My Police Officer friends are avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment and although I have not yet specifically discussed SB 1214 with them I would be surprised if they are not in full support of SB 1214. I expected the Chiefs of Police to say what they did as they are merely politically appointed employees of the universities they represented & were required say what their employer wanted them to say. All of the Police Officers that I know on the other hand support the Constitution as well as its second amendment, something I don't expect from a University run by elitists or their appointed Chief or Police, but I do expect it from the Police Officers that walk the streets putting their life on the line to protect all of us as well as the Constitution they are sworn to protect, real every day Police Officers which I would expect to be comprising the majority of an organization like the AZ FOP.

Today I received my annual call from the AZ FOP asking for my usual monetary donation. I respectfully declined for the first time & specified the AZ FOP stance against my beloved US constitution, specifically its stance against AZ SB 1214, as my reason why I will no longer be supporting the AZ FOP organization. The caller then actually asked me "What, do you want everyone to be able to be running around with guns at schools?" & My answer was "YES! If they're a law abiding citizen 21 years or older, and have gone through the process to get their CCW permit, why not?"

Thanks for your time & consideration of my viewpoints.

PS: Many who testified against SB 1214 argued that Police would be confused or have too much time wasted when arriving at the scene to find more than one person with a gun. Here are my counter points:

1) Police are already trained on how to engage someone with a weapon & know that they can't assume a person with a gun is the "bad guy" (it could be an armed citizen or an off duty or undercover Police Officer for example). I don't know the specifics, but I imagine rules of engagement are something like this: "Freeze! Drop your weapon!" - the good guys or gals will obey, but the perp will likely do one of three things:
a) Run
b) Start shooting at the Police
c) shoot him or herself

2) Most likely the "gun fight" between one or more civilians & the perp will be over before Police arrive, as most gun fights last less than a minute. Either the perp will be subdued or shot, or the armed civilian or civilians will be among the victim count. But at least they will have had a fighting chance. Even if Police do happen to arrive before the fight is over, see #1 above.

For examples of #1 above look at the Principal in Pearl Mississippi who stopped the perp before he could hit the 2nd school he was driving to next. Look at the law school in Virginia where 2 students got their guns from their cars, challenged the perp to have him drop his weapon, after which a bunch of unarmed students subdued the Perp & held him down while waiting for Police to arrive. Or the CCW permit carrier at the church in CO who stopped the perp with her concealed weapon & the perp then shot himself before Police could arrive.

For an example of #2 above look at the off duty police officer in the Utah Trolley Square Mall who kept the perp busy in a gun fight until Police arrived to take the bad guy out. Think of how many lives these examples of armed people in the right place at the right time saved. So vastly different from VT, Columbine, etc. where all the good guys & gals were disarmed by a foolish "gun free zone" policy and left to fall victim to the perp or perps until the perps decided they had killed enough victims & decided to take themselves out either before Police went in, or when they knew Police were coming in.

CA: San Diego DA supports DC handgun ban

San Diego CA District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the DC handgun ban but claims she is a "Strong Supporter" of the Second Amendment. If that is her idea of Strong Support, I'd sure hate to see what her Strong Opposition would look like!

As they say, with friends like her, who needs enemies?

Five Questions about Shootings at Universities by Dennis Prager

Five Questions about lamestream media coverage of Shootings at Universities by Dennis Prager. An excellent article that asks the following 5 questions:

• Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."
• Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
• Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
• Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?
• Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

ATF raid on Cavalry Arms on Feb 27

Yesterday on Feb 27th, the ATF raided Cavalry Arms in Gilbert, Arizona. I have no details yet as to the ALLEGATIONS of federal firearms violations used to get the federal search & seizure warrant, but my first guess would be that this is yet another ATF abuse of power. In the video interview the ATF agent said they planned to TAKE the entire inventory due to ALLEGATIONS but did not specify what the ALLEGATIONS were. I guess the ATF plan of action is to take the inventory first, then spend years in court trying to prove the allegations. The ATF probably hopes to run Cavalry Arms out of business in the process as it may be difficult to continue doing business without any inventory. An estimate was given by ABC news of around 1000 firearms confiscated without compensation.

The ATF agent incorrectly called the mid powered AR-15 rifles they confiscated "High Powered" military type Rifles. What a moron. Shouldn't an ATF agent that commonly deals with guns know what a high powered rifle looks like? A common .30-06 hunting rifle is twice as powerful as an AR-15 5.56 mm round, and the .30-06 is not even the most powerful hunting rifle in use. Get a clue, an AR-15 is NOT HIGH POWERED! Enough with the lies & propaganda for crying out loud.

More from David, Red's Trading Post, Nicki, SayUncle, AnArchAngel, and ColtCCO.

Update 1: See this update.

Ordering a Pizza with a National ID

What it could look like to order a Pizza in the future if we all had National ID cards (video from the ACLU - I don't often agree with the ACLU, but they did hit the head of the nail on this one).



H/T to Sebastian & Michael Bane.

Ten Really Good Reasons to Ban Guns (Satire) By Bruce Gold

Excellent satire from Bruce Gold, H/T to Lone Ranger.

Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds
Ten Really Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold

1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.

2.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.

3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.

4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.

5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.

6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

7.) Gun owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.

8.) Gun owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.

9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!

10.) Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights". No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.

Some National Park Retirees are worried about law abiding citizens

I'm not sure why some National Park Retirees are worried at the thought of law abiding citizens being allowed to carry weapons into National Parks. I sent the following e-mail to the contact address listed on the site (bill_wade@npsretirees.org):

A few questions occurred to me after reading the following article: http://www.npsretirees.org/feature/fighting-keep-gun-ban

I don't understand the concern over allowing law abiding citizens to remain armed in National Parks who are already armed everywhere else they are legally allowed such as State Parks, camping grounds, crowded movie theaters, & shopping malls without incident? Armed law abiding citizens are not a problem in any region, so why will they suddenly become raving lunatics the moment they step into a National Park? It's the criminals that are the problem, not the law abiding. Criminals do not care about breaking a silly "gun free zone" regulation when they already ignore much more important laws such as the law against murder, drug trafficking, etc. They actually prefer unarmed victims in gun free zones as it makes their profession of crime safer for them - just look at Washington DC where the only people with handguns are the Police & the Criminals yet Washington DC is often called the "Murder Capitol" of the world.

Yes, per square foot or per visitor National Parks are "more safe" than the same ratios in many crime ridden cities, but that is no excuse to disarm the law abiding. Telling law abiding citizens that it is "unlikely" that they would need to defend themselves is not going to make a disarmed victim feel any better when they become yet another statistic of rape or murder in National Parks. It is unlikely that my house will ever burn down, yet I still waste money on fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, & fire insurance in preparation for the worst case scenario that will likely never take place. It's called "being prepared" - ever hear of the Boy Scouts? I am an Eagle Scout & I believe in being prepared. Being prepared to protect myself in the unlikely event that I were to need to does not make me a gun wielding crazy person that retired Park Rangers should be afraid of.

Every time a new law or regulation expands the locations law abiding citizens are allowed to carry weapons for their own protection we always hear dire predictions from opponents of blood & mayhem in the streets, yet it never happens. Look at Florida as just one example - those against allowing CCW carry (including many Florida Chiefs of Police) predicted wild west gun battles over parking spaces & blood running down the streets. It never happened, and instead violent crime levels actually went down in Florida after the law went into effect.

With your permission I'll be posting your response at the following URL once I receive it:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-national-park-retirees-are-worried.html

Update - as of March 10th 2008 it has been 2 weeks since I sent the above E-mail & still no reply. I guess they simply have no rational answer to my straight forward questions.