“A disgruntled ex-cop carrying a loaded gun [not shown] bypassed metal detectors at a federal building in Philadelphia and entered the FBI’s office there this week after flashing a fake police badge and his inactive ID card, according to sources and court records obtained by ABC News. The FBI ultimately took the man’s gun after becoming suspicious, but ‘he could’ve shot up half the office by that point,’ as one law enforcement expert put it after reading the court records.” I reckon security checkpoints make people complacent. Strike that . . .
Back in 1998, the University of Chicago Press published economist John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime. A lot of people bought it. Not many read it. No surprise there. Saying MGLC is a stat-heavy tome is like saying that anyone who attempts to knock a pregnant woman unconscious for the sheer bloody hell of it deserves ballistic disincentive. Yes, there is that [as above]. But here’s the thing: not many Americans carry a gun. Percentage-wise, you can round it down to zero. What if more people packed heat? Would there be less violent crime? If that’s true, where’s the tipping point? Ten percent? Twenty percent? And given that inter-gang warfare accounts for a large chunk of “gun violence,” would legal carry have any effect on inner city violent crime? One more thing: would open carry be more effective at reducing/preventing violent crime than concealed?
The legallyconcealed.com vlogger above is as unequivocal as he is taciturn: warn any home invaders that you’re armed and the cops are on their way. Makes sense to me. Especially if you’ve called 911 and put the phone down, so the service will record everything you say, for use in your defense. Only…is it possible that you’d want to ambush one more bad guys coming to rob, rape or kill you and/or your loved ones? What if you’re not in a defensible position? Do you really want to sacrifice the advantages of speed, surprise and violence of action? I say it depends on the situation; that you don’t want to commit to ANY default course of action. Have a plan but know that it probably won’t survive first contact with the enemy. What say you?
“Shaneen Allen faces 3½ years in prison because she made an honest mistake, followed by a mistake of honesty,” Jacob Sullum opines at nypost.com. Yes, that New York Post. The Murdoch-owned bird cage liner that constantly, hysterically, hyperbolically promotes civilian disarmament. In case you missed the backstory, “Allen, a 27-year-old phlebotomist who lives in Philadelphia, drove to Atlantic City with a gun in her purse, thinking her Pennsylvania carry permit would be respected in New Jersey. Then she told a state trooper about the gun when he pulled her over for a traffic violation . . . Her trial, scheduled for Oct. 6, will pit New Jersey’s draconian gun laws against compassion and common sense.” Is this The Big One? The case that will show-up NJ’s tyranny and signal a shift firearms freedom fence-sitters’ attitude towards lawful carry? [h/t DD]
Whenever I give the National Rifle Association grief (e.g. an admonition for their recent decision to pull Dom Raso’s “guns for the blind” video) I try to remember that the NRA plays politics. That game requires long-term thinking, back-room dealing and, for us, unpalatable compromise. So when I read Gun lobby’s campaign donations drop in NY since passage of SAFE Act at nydailynews.com (excerpt after the jump) that the NRA and National Shooting Sports Foundation have cut contributions to New York’s pro-gun pols, I tried to think why they’d do such a thing. Lack of funds? Ha! No one worth supporting? That’s not hardball. A lost cause? That doesn’t seem possible but . . . what do you reckon? . . .
Last week, Gerald Patrick Marr shot and killed a 31-year-old mother and her daughter and then shot and killed himself. Within hours, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Facebook page waved the bloody shirt. The only [semi] interesting thing about their post: they didn’t bother to specifically state what new law would have prevented the tragedy (hint: none). There are gun owners who sympathize with MDA’s intentionally oblique crusade for “sensible” restrictions on gun ownership. Foremost amongst them, “Fudds” – hunters who can’t understand why people want to own modern sporting rifles. And, by extension, “high-capacity” handguns. [See: letter to the editor after the jump.] Do you know anyone like that? . . .
“This is not perceived as being furtherance of a domestic gun control agenda. It is trying to influence Russia’s aggressive stance toward Ukraine. No one is questioning imposition of sanctions.” – NSSF VP and general counsel Larry Keane quoted in Embargo prompts run on Russian-made guns in U.S. [via sfgate.com]
“In truth, almost nobody is America is prepared for an Ebola outbreak — not the people, not the hospitals, not the grocery stores and certainly not the government,” naturalnews.com reports. “Even a small, local Ebola outbreak would result in a mandatory lock down of people in their own homes. The government’s phrase for this is ‘shelter in place,’ and it was invoked at gunpoint during the Boston Marathon bombings. The problem with all this is that the very minute the public gets word of Ebola spreading in America, people will launch into panic buying of everything you can imagine: gasoline and fuel, water, storable foods, chemical sanitizers, ammunition, firearms and so on. Think ‘zombie apocalypse’ and you’ll get the idea.” Thinking about guns and ammo here. Are you ready?
Chris “Starlord” Pratt is on the cover of this month’s Esquire magazine. According to the mag, “Pratt talks about his thirty- or forty-gun arsenal. He bought Faris [actress Anna Faris, Pratt's wife, above] a gun in the event that crazy person comes to their house while he’s in Louisiana and necessitates her ‘blowing their f—— brains out.’ He tells me to print that, just in case Anna Faris’ and Esquire’s fan demographics overlap.” So, pro-gun? Not the way Esquire spins it . . .
PetitionForRedress sent us a link to eagnews.org, which reveals that “A prominent CNN commentator [Sally Kohn, above], the top two political reporters for The Huffington Post, a Reuters reporter, the editor of The Nation magazine, a producer for Al Jazeera America television, a U.S. News & World Report columnist, and approximately two dozen Huffington Post contributors are among the more than 1,000 members of Gamechanger Salon. Founded by leftwing activist Billy Wimsatt, the group is a secretive digital gathering of writers, opinion leaders, activists and political hands who share information, ideas and strategy via a closed Google group.” And how many of them support individual, uninfringeable gun rights? I’m thinking . . . none. But does this prove that there is, indeed, a left-wing/Democratic/Progressive conspiracy against firearms freedom? Or is that something you knew anyway?
Over on TTAG’s ever-popular Facebook page, reader Paul Goodman Heinrich [not shown] wants to know how The People of the Gun will ming in the event of a societal collapse. “In the event of an anarchy, post apocalyptic, or most probable zombie world; do you believe that the gun owner community would really fight each other? Do you think you would really have to defend yourself against the guy that goes to the same range you do? The law abiding citizen that shares your same values? Or do you believe that gun owners and families would more than likely team-up and create their own little government? Who do you have to be afraid of another fellow gun owner? Or the person that has none?”
TTAG reader JT emailed us a link to a CNN story by Jarrett Bellini headlined Apparently This Matters: America invades virtual Denmark. JT summed up the multi-national Minecraft misegos this way: “Virtual Denmark puts a virtual ban on virtual dynamite. Americans find a way to virtually smuggle in virtual dynamite in virtual mining carts and virtually blow up part of virtual Denmark. Americans plant virtual flag in virtual Denmark.” As you might expect, the Danes were not well pleased. What does Denmark’s failed virtual ban on virtual TNT tell you about criminals, terrorists, armed self-defense and gun control?