01/26/13

This is written with a clear bias. I eagerly admit this. The news story I refer to below, which you may notice is typical of most every news story since the murders, also has a clear bias, but they will not admit to this.

It was nothing more than an email that made it onto Facebook. No verification presented. Just another predictably incendiary response to the flames flying back and forth through the ether these days. But it struck a nerve with me. It went something like this:

Columbine shooting---both murderers too young to vote, but both sets of murderers’ parents registered democrats

Virginia Tech shooting-----murderer a registered democrat

Fort Hood shooting---murderer a registered democrat

Colorado Theater shooting---murderer a registered democrat, Occupy Wall Street protester, Obama campaign worker

Newtown shooting---murderer a registered democrat

Now, I don’t know if any of the above is true, or if party affiliation matters a whit in the distorted mind workings of a mass murderer. Most likely not. I have nothing against democrats. Heck, I’ve been a registered democrat for decades. And other than wonder if Obama has considered that he is likely to alienate a core constituency if he actually expects his repressive gun control laws to impact folks longing to follow in the footsteps of these killers, I don’t care. 

But what caught my mind was the point made by the guy who sent the email. All he did was pose the question, “Has anyone ever heard of a mass shooting conducted by a member of the NRA?”

This question floats in the air…

I hear every day now that the NRA is the reason those victims of mass murder are dead, but where are those NRA killers?

A typical blurb popped up on the computer the other day.  Yet another news story concerning the president’s massive new and rehashed list of restrictions and bans he wishes to impose upon the citizens of this country, supposedly in the wake of the terrible murders of children by a lone madman. Upon superficial observation, the news story seemed to favor the president’s point of view. In it, no one offers a rebuttal to the president’s promises. 

First of course, they had to retell the horrors of the murders, in case one person on earth had missed the 24/7 news coverage for the last month. A troubled young man murders his mother in bed and then travels to the classroom where she had worked, presumably to make his mother feel even worse by killing the children in her classroom. He murders twenty innocent 6 year old kids, using the “High Powered Military Style Assault Weapon to Spray bullets all over the place”. They always make it sound as if the murderer killed his victims deader this way than if he had committed the despicable deed by any other method. 

And then the news story kinda forgets all about the man who murdered, and shifts the cause of this tragedy to the tool used. 

Forgets all about the man who murdered….

A man on the street is interviewed, and in no uncertain terms, he demands that something be done to end “Gun Violence”.

A spokesperson from each of three organizations long dedicated to banning guns is interviewed, and after an extensive Q&A session, a consensus flows into the story. Americans have no right to own firearms. The Second Amendment only applies to government militias, such as the National Guard. A gun in the house is hundreds of times more dangerous to the people living in the house than to any criminal who might break in. Nobody needs a machine gun to go deer hunting. And “Military Style Assault Weapons” must be banned, and then all handguns and rifles while we are at it, for civilians have no need for these. Only the police and military should be allowed firearms. If only one child is saved it will be worth it.

No one contradicts or questions the misinformation presented by the gun ban spokespersons.

With only one column inch remaining to fill, the story turns to the difficulty the president faces getting these desperately needed “common sense” gun regulations passed into law. But horrors!!! The powerful “Gun Lobby” is swinging into action to block him. 

The “Gun Lobby” isn’t given an extensive Q&A session to make its case against the president’s  un-necessary regulations intended to punish the people who don’t go around killing folks. The “Gun Lobby” isn’t actually given a chance to say anything at all. For this is one debate that is strangely one sided. The author of this piece did go to the trouble to paraphrase a bit of what the “Gun Lobby” might have said if ever asked, carefully selected and taken out of context to assure that anyone who has read this far will easily conclude that the “Gun Lobby” is so extreme that they should be locked up for their own protection, and of course for the protection of little kids. 

And then the piece ends with a fervent wish that the president will finally succeed in enacting legislation that will forever protect people from “Gun Violence”.

Did you hear the ominous peal of thunder when the words “Gun Lobby” appeared? Did you see the lights briefly flicker? Did horses whiney in desperation in the distance? Did a wizard straight from central casting hold a finger to his lips and caution about, “The name that must not be spoken”?

The National Rifle Association has become Lord Voldemort in the gun control debate. The NRA has been painted as so virulently evil that any mention of the organization leaves a metallic taste in many people’s mouths. One wonders how the NRA has been allowed to exist, for it and it alone is responsible for all those murders, all those ruined lives, all those holes in the stop signs.

The camera focuses in on a demonstration, people carrying signs against “Gun Violence”. “Save the Children” from the guns. And “Stop the NRA”!!. It’s the NRA’s fault. Evil NRA. “How is your conscience, NRA?”

Really?

Back in the 1870’s the US Government was concerned about the quality of men entering the army, for their marksmanship was not up to snuff. So at the request of the US Government, the National Rifle Association formed to teach marksmanship and conduct target shooting contests. To this day, the NRA teaches marksmanship and conducts national contests. 

The NRA began teaching firearms safety after the turn of the last century, for accidental deaths were way too high. The rates of accidental firearms related deaths have been dropping ever since. And the NRA is still the primary reason for the continuing drop in accidental firearms related deaths. And no, don’t expect to read this in the next media story.

The NRA has trained police officers for many decades, and many live today because of this. The NRA has also trained countless civilians in marksmanship and safety. The NRA has been the recognized world authority in marksmanship and firearms safety. But, don’t expect……

In the mid 1930’s many things changed in this country. Long story short, the plunge toward total government control began in that decade as people willingly traded freedom for the comfort of government provided security. Half way through the decade the Supreme Court decided against the Second Amendment because a man with a winning case died before he could present it, and the first serious erosion of the right to bear arms became law. And for the first time, the National Rifle Association entered the fray against those who would disarm the citizens.

The NRA has been fighting attacks on gun owners and the Second Amendment since.  Lies and distortions, spoken by politicians and repeated and reinforced by media, became the ground rules of this attack on citizens owning firearms. Massive propaganda campaigns, like the current push by Obama and Feinstein, tried to sway public opinion. Demonize a common firearm or component and then try to ban them. “Saturday Night Special” “Cop Killer Bullet” “Plastic Guns” “Sniper Rifle” “Assault Weapon” Ban them. The NRA fought these bans for they were based upon lies and distortion, and merely demonized firearms so that large numbers of guns would be banned for no reason. Handgun bans. Semiautomatic rifle bans. Self defense bans. Each designed solely to disarm the public, to deny citizens their rights under the Constitution. The NRA fought them all by telling the truth, and by educating voters who had little other source of information save the inaccuracies, distortions and outright lies presented in the media. 

The politicians say that the NRA is evil, and that they, the politicians, are the good guys. But they trample our Constitutional rights for political gain, and the people suffer. An educated public demanded the truth, and thus freedom won many times over corrupt politicians. Civilians with firearms defended themselves millions of times from criminal attack, because they still could. Citizens enjoyed their shooting hobbies and taught their children to hunt in long standing family tradition. And the slide toward a disarmed public facing corrupt government slowed.

The NRA has a few million members, far more than all gun ban groups together, but by themselves they cannot defend freedom. The NRA has money to spend in the congress and senate, but by themselves they cannot buy freedom. Yet freedom keeps getting in the way of those who would trample it. What is it about the NRA that angers the media and the politicians so? Could it be that despite all they do to demonize the NRA, America still listens to that voice of reason? For many more than the NRA’s 4 million members vote against gun control and the politicians who foist it upon the public. Freedom persists the old fashioned way. The citizens demand it.

One voice. One voice, that points out the lies of the media and the politicians. One voice that opposes the propaganda campaigns. One voice that alerts free Americans where to fight and when. One voice, without which the average person would never see a side to the arguments that the media and the politicians dare not present. Small wonder the media and the politicians hate the NRA so, and desperately try to silence it.

This Lord Voldemort is not the evil it is painted. But it stands solidly in the way of the media and the politicians, and so they must try to destroy it.

Still, there are no NRA meetings in the prisons of America. The NRA is not encouraging criminals to be criminals. Nope. The NRA keeps asking the government to enforce its own laws, to catch and punish criminals before it lights out after the innocent citizen, but this is too hard for our government. Or…they just don’t care.

There are no NRA meetings on International Blvd in Oakland, Sycamore Dr in Antioch, Cutter Blvd in Richmond. The gangs and murderers of the hood don’t join the NRA. They kill each other off on a daily basis all by themselves. They…are not the fault of the NRA.

A mass murderer steals a gun and kills random people. He could have used so many other tools for his dastardly work. And if the propaganda works, and the ambitious corruption in government wins, and the guns dry up, he will simple choose another tool, and children will still die. And the media will profit greatly reporting the murders over and over and over again, to encourage yet the next generation of murderers. But those murderers still will not belong to the NRA.

A woman who can sleep with a pistol under her pillow so she won’t be raped again, can thank the NRA. A family that sleeps soundly because nasty as they are, our criminals are reluctant to crash into an occupied home, for the home owner could face him with a firearm can thank the NRA. A kid who grows up in the forest seeking deer, rather than in a slum seeking crack…can thank the NRA. And a cop who goes home after her shift, can thank the NRA. Millions of Americans who awake to freedom each morning, can thank the NRA. 

It’s only the enemies of freedom who think the NRA is Lord Voldemort.

So no…I don’t recall hearing of a mass shooting where the murderer was a NRA member. Not ever. Now you might think I’m slipping off into my usual paranoid rant, but … ah, don’t you figure the media would take note of this and mention it, oh I don’t know, four thousand times a day, if they did have one of these NRA member murderers? I think we’d hear about it.

I mean….. come on. The media already blames the NRA for every one of these mass murders. Yet, I have it on good authority that the NRA was not present at any of these murders. 

Heck, I wasn’t either, but I’ve felt the heat, the scorn, the thinly veiled hatred directed at me every time I listen to the TV “reporting” or read a blurb on the net concerning the latest version of copycat killing. 

American gun owners!!! You know who you are!!!  Count the bodies!!!! Gun violence, and it’s the fault of America’s gun owners. Where is your conscience?

Really?

American gun owners. Nearly 100 million gun owners who are not murderers, not criminals. Look what you and the NRA have done for good, and for freedom. 

How’s your conscience?

For Last Resort Only

I keep one in the treatment room of my clinic. The treatment room is the center of things, and you pass through it to get anywhere else in the clinic, so it makes sense to keep it there. I spend much of my day in the treatment room, so yeah it makes sense to keep one there. 

It has been in the same place for over forty years. I check on it every month out of habit, making sure it is always well maintained and loaded. And then it just sits there. Never once have I actually needed to use it, which is a good thing. I suppose one might question the need to keep something like this handy when one has never actually needed to use it. But there is always that small possibility that someday I might suddenly need it. If that time comes, I’d rather it be there than not.

I concede that it is not one of those deals were everything is always positive when you keep one of these around. I know of one very tragic case where we think the young lady tried to use one of these to save her life when the twice convicted violent rapist attacked her in a veterinary clinic much like mine, and he took it away and used it to murder her. So there is that side to the argument that I hear often.

I have one at home too. This one lives in a closet, but it is always in the same place, waiting, ready, and easy to access. There’s one in the truck too. For that just in case moment when really…nothing else will do.

For some reason, the politicians aren’t trying to prohibit me from keeping it around. I guess they don’t see the political potential here that they see in, oh my guns for instance. And they fail to see the benefit of, oh, my guns for instance. My guns also hang around on the off chance I might need one to save my life and property in an emergency. And they harm no one in the process of waiting. Still, the politicians seek to take away my guns.

But the politicians have no problem with at all with my fire extinguishers.

01/13/13

I cannot imagine a greater tragedy than the death of a child. To have one snatched away in a violent act, the consequence of the irrational hatred of a madman, must be the most painful. Who wouldn’t do their best to prevent such a thing from ever happening again? Vice President Biden states that our president promises to do whatever it takes so this never happens again. Not one more child. Not ever.

This is an ambitious statement, but heck, not one more child would be worth whatever it would take, whatever it would cost, right?

I’m not going to make light of murder. I’m not that callous or stupid. But I’ve been watching the response to murder, and it lends itself to some head scratching.

We are experiencing an epidemic of shootings in schools. That’s what they are calling it these days. Those of us trained in medicine use a different definition for the word epidemic, but this situation clearly demands a little hyperbole, so I’ll let that go. One murder is too many, and there have been far more than one.

In the last twenty years, 484 kids have been killed in shootings in our schools. It was way worse back in the early 90’s than it is now, for the gang warfare had spilled from the streets into the schools. They didn’t call it an epidemic back then. And it’s slowed down considerably since 93. 

But since the mid 90’s, a few crazies have discovered the nearly everlasting notoriety they can gain by murdering innocent people they catch defenseless in shopping malls, theaters, and schools. They choose to become famous for murder, and garner weeks of 24 hour a day cable news coverage, their pictures plastered over the TV screen and in the newspapers, their life stories broadcast, with all their grievances aired as their reward. All this publicity turns their heinous crimes into something almost heroic in their demented minds.

So now we have madmen killing kids in schools.    

Four Hundred Eighty Four kids in only twenty years….A big number. A national disgrace. A horror. An epidemic.

Why, this is a bigger number than the 200 kids killed every year by drunk drivers.

It’s even a bigger number than the 250-425 kids murdered by their own parents every year. And it is parents who have always been by far the biggest murderers of kids. So yeah, this number of kids dying from shootings in our schools is too high.

What to do, you might ask? This is a question on every set of lips these days. How to protect our children from mass murders.

Some have suggested stationing a police officer in every school. We have 55 million kids in pre K-12 to protect. This sounds like a good idea, but there are only 800,000 police officers in the entire country, and we have 130,000 public and private schools to guard. The other criminals out there in our society, the bunch other than that handful each year who want to commit suicide by killing a group of innocents, might take advantage of the artifical shortage of cops this would create. And who could guess how much harm they’d do with this opportunity.

Senator Feinstein mentioned using the National Guard to uh, guard the schools. We have roughly 500,000 Guard soldiers, but many are already occupied, so I don’t see that working.

Likely the president has other ideas. He is an idea guy. One of his oldest, firmest ideas is his desire to disarm the entire American population. He’s been talking this up since he was a teacher of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Presumably, the president figures if he begins taking all the firearms away from all the people, starting with the easy people, the folks who obey laws to a fault, and then slowly working his way through the people who might ‘forget’ to turn in their guns, and then investing the effort to disarm the really stubborn bunch who will simply refuse to turn in their guns without a fight, he might eventually, finally, get to the psychopaths and criminals we’d all like to disarm.

Let’s see, that would be about 95 million law abiding people before he gets to the bad guys. That won’t take long.

For this the president will need all 800,000 cops, the 500,000 National Guard soldiers, and likely the rest of the military. Things will surely change around here for the better, once 300 million guns are confiscated. The psychopaths and criminals will be the last to give up their guns, of course. Oh, and that bunch of formerly law abiding productive citizens who actually revolt against this annoyance will be a fly in the ointment But eventually, the president’s dream might come true.

This disarming the good guys to eventually disarm the bad has never actually worked in any other country, but this is America. We know how to do things right.

The president did promise to protect all 55 million kids. Every one of them. So after the smoke clears, it will be worth it.

So I’m also waiting for the president to announce when he will take all the children away from their parents, to have them reared in safety by the state. You know, onna counta that bunch of crazy parents who kill their own kids. Can’t let that bit slide, because not one more….

And when will the president order the destruction of all the motor vehicles? Without vehicles the drunk drivers cannot kill another kid.

Most likely, the president won’t get the chance to remove every firearm from America. And he is unlikely to suggest anything remotely like the last two paragraphs. Which is fine. The ideas in those last two paragraphs wouldn’t save every singe child. Losing video games and violent movies won’t do it either. Somebody somewhere, some angry crazy person with a hammer or a 2X4, will eventually kill another child. Or a roomful.

The numbers won’t change much, but they already hover right around lightning strike. Can anyone make the promise of not one more child? Nope. Not even a president. Do we need to change everything because of this? 

Nope

Won’t help.

01/06/13

The Great American Novel

Sorry this is so long, but I got carried away. I Promise I won't write about guns again, unless they really piss me off again.

I grow weary of discussing gun control. I truly do. I started back in the 1970’s when I was the rabid liberal and thought all guns should be taken out of the hands of the public. I took it up again in the 80’s, with a somewhat different perspective and conclusion. And by the 90’s I was completely caught up in the controversy along with the rest of the good folks in this country. This debate has continued, with some increase and decrease since then, with a considerable growth in volume and ferocity. And in case you haven’t noticed, the subject has surfaced again.

I’ve learned some things along the way. In these past 40 years I’d hope I learned something. I’ve been taught a few things, been indoctrinated about a few others, and have sought out information when it has been available, not being one to always believe that which others have wanted me to think. I don’t claim any absolute truths here. One thing I have learned is that there are few absolute truths in this world. In fact, the most important thing I have learned is that when an absolute truth is presented to me, I’d best check it out, for guess what…absolute truths often have the very least truth attached to them.

Going back to my mind in the 70’s, I see an optimist, a sheltered, reasonably well educated and socialized young professional, who watched and read the news, discussed issues with friends.  Presumably I was an asset to the community. For instance, I voted for Dianne Feinstein a couple of times, for the Sierra Club liked her, and she had pushed through the preservation of large tracts of wild country I thought worth saving. And she had argued for a handgun ban in San Francisco, and everything I had heard from my friends and seen in the newspapers and on TV had taught me that handguns were pure evil, the scourge of mankind, and of course they should be banned.

It was only much later, when I learned that Ms Feinstein had a concealed carry permit in those days, and this was because she felt she was entitled to protection. Then later when she got those armed guards, those armed guards that she still has, I began to wonder again about her honesty. For she was trying to disarm people who thought they also needed protection, but these were those who could not afford armed guards and didn’t have the influence in government to get most anything they wanted, like the people in the ruling elite. People like Ms Feinstein.

Later, I discovered that that bit of land in Utah that Ms Feinstein managed to preserve from mining, scenic land that I wished protected, just happened to hold a precious mineral much in demand in this country. Imagine my surprise to find that the mining company in Southeast Asia that supplied this mineral to our country was owned by her wealthy husband. Excuse me for being human here, but I kinda lost faith in the lady senator’s honesty around then.

Back in the 70’s it was expected that if you were a liberal, you were opposed to handguns in the hands of regular folks. Handguns were just for killing. No other purpose. They were more dangerous than most anything on earth. Kids picked em up and blew their little brains out every day. Only idiots and savages owned them, and all the rest of us were put at risk as a consequence. 

Heck, when Barney Miller came home from the police station on TV, the first thing he did, before kissing his lovely stay at home wife, was to unload his service revolver and lock it in that little drawer way up by the ceiling, and then lock those nasty bullets in the other little drawer way up over there, because even though they had no children, no grandchildren, no day care children in their apartment, and he didn’t get raging drunk every night and beat his wife, the TV made it clear that a handgun was so dangerous that if you didn’t lock it up un-loaded, somebody was going to get killed, and that really hurts.

Politicians, like Ms Feinstein told me that handguns were worthless and dangerous. So did the TV news, the newspapers, my friends, musicians and movie stars, and my teachers. And there was not a voice within hearing that even suggested any other view. This would be the indoctrination part. It was very effective.

I voted once to ban handguns in California. I thought that “Saturday Night Specials” should all be rounded up and melted. Imagine, an inexpensive killing machine like a “Saturday Night Special” could still be bought in California, and all it was good for was killing people.

It was only later that I learned that the proposed ban on “Saturday Night Specials” was essentially an attempt to disarm poor Black people down in the bad neighborhoods. It was little more than another example of the institutional racism I had thought I had been fighting for all those years. 

Ya see….there was a piece to the puzzle of life that I had missed out on for many years. It’s a little known fact, mostly ignored, or suppressed, depending upon one’s view of life I guess, whereby the use of a handgun to defend against crime is actually a common event. You won’t hear about this in the newspapers or the TV news. The politicians won’t mention this. Movie stars and musicians often pass right by this notion. Teachers will argue against even the thought. And your friends will look at you in total disbelief if you so much as mention it. Heck, somebody will email me tomorrow to take them off this weekly little gab session because I bring this up.

But some people actually think that a handgun in the house is more likely to help you defend yourself from a crime than it is to harm you or anyone you know. 

Blasphemy!

This is a minority view. I’ll concede that. The Department of Justice, the federal version, who keep track of the misuse of firearms by criminals and have a long history of downplaying any positive aspect of firearm ownership, estimated that firearms have been used to prevent crime as often as 110,000 times a year. Other than the usual “zero times” you are likely to get if you ask the media, or the likes of Ms Feinstein, this is about the lowest estimate you can find. One guy set out to survey random people to prove that defensive use of firearms is a myth came up with a result he didn’t expect, an estimate of defense against criminal attack… 2.5 million times a year. This on the plus side in case you are wondering.  This author was surprised. Others with different methodology came up with only .75 million.

Don’t look for this information in the Media or from Ms Feinstein.

They will argue against it, and have. Shortly after such numbers have been released, the Media and politicians have asked all the gun ban organizations to get their take on these numbers. Each and every one of the gun ban organizations has lambasted the conclusions of these studies. They are so sure of themselves that they rejected the conclusions often without even reading the studies.

I know, my paranoia here, right? Well…look into this. Read Gary Kleck and John Lott. Then check into the responses from the gun control advocates. It’s rather shameful.  Then come back and tell me I’m paranoid. Sure, we can argue the numbers, just how many times the good guys win, but the numbers are pretty solid that it’s mostly the good guys.

The next time a gun control issue shows up in the Media, such as the coverage of the recent school murders, take quiet note of the number of gun control advocates consulted and quoted in the stories. Note the slant of the story itself. Note the horror in the tone of the Media content. Note the Media editorials. And then notice how any opposition to the gun control stance is handled. If any shows at all, it will receive fewer words in print, less time on the air, and often you will not hear much more than a sound bite or two, and then a synopsis of the pro firearm stance by one or more opponents of such a stance. Our Media consults the opponents of firearm ownership to paraphrase the arguments that they oppose, rather than presenting to the public those arguments. 

Notice the nearly total absence of reports of crimes prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. Note the near complete absence of reports of mass murders prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. And try to avoid the temptation to disregard this request with some response that you have never heard of such defenses. You have just made my point.

You will notice that I am no longer the gun hating liberal I was in 1972. And for some reason, I am far more skeptical of politicians and the Media.

Consider the discussion about “Cop Killer Bullets” some time ago. Two guys invented a bullet intended for law enforcement use. Normal handgun bullets often deflect when fired into car windshields and doors. A denser metal bullet would penetrate better, and in the hands of the police could prove useful in urban settings. Somebody asked the developers if such a bullet might defeat the body armor that the police were beginning to wear, and from this the notion of a “Cop Killer Bullet” was born. 

Politicians and the Media smelled blood in the water, and turned a non-issue into the next great threat to civilization. NBC I believe, decided to televise a special intended to raise alarm among the general public, and over police protest, proceeded to give a primer to criminals on how to kill a police officer in a gun fight. The cops were thrilled. Politicians took the nonsense and ran with it, demanding a ban on every cartridge in America that could defeat the body armor of the day. In other word, virtually every hunting rifle cartridge. Some people objected to this draconian measure. They were of course, vilified in the Media. Hunters were all branded as cop killers.

The argument raged between people who saw this as a way to render so many firearms worthless, and the citizens who thought this un-necessary. Eventually, a law limiting the actual armor piercing bullet in question to use only by police was written. (In case you care, the dreaded demon known as the NRA helped congress write this sane law, which passed easily)

Oh, and after all the fuss, the sum total of police officers killed by “Cop Killer Bullets” remains at zero. And they haven’t been manufactured in years.

Mel Gibson used a “Cop Killer Bullet” in one of his movies a few years ago, after they were no longer made. Blew a hole through a bulldozer blade to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie. Clever trick, if a bit exaggerated. Mel doesn’t much like guns. He has made a fortune misusing them in his movies, but he doesn’t want us citizens to own any. He talks often of disarming all of us. 

Imagine that.

Mayor Blumberg mentioned “Cop Killer Bullets” the other day too. He thinks we should ban them. He doesn’t care that they do not exist. He has a few billion dollars and the ear of the Media, so he can say anything he wants. He presumably gets along well with Ms Feinstein as long as they are trying to disarm people.

Mel has used and misused machine guns to make a fortune in his movies. In a movie the bad guy with an Uzi sporting a thirty round magazine hoses down the neighborhood for a minute or two, in slow motion sometimes, burning up a few thousand rounds without reloading. The bad guy generally holds the Uzi with one hand while cradling his beer with the other. Mel fires back with an automatic rifle holding twenty rounds, launching back a few thousand bullets, blowing up cars and chopping down buildings.

I’m pretty convinced this is where the notion of “spraying bullets” came to be attached to the “Assault Weapons” ban idea. From stupid nonsense in movies. I’ve fired an Uzi. Legally I might add. I have some firearms experience, and yet I could not make a thirty round magazine last more than a second. It goes empty that fast. Course I didn’t try, for if you use that weapon like a hose, the recoil causes the muzzle to rise to the ceiling if you really don’t know what you are doing, and really knowing what you are doing doesn’t include holding the weapon with only one hand. “Spraying Bullets” from a machine gun is a movie myth. And by any definition, "Assault Weapons" are not machine guns.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban was kinda funny, looking back on it. Ms Feinstein is deadly serious with her “New Assault Weapon” ban. But we have to see what will come of this new one.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban left us gun owners a bit confused. I know a bunch of people who are extremely educated in firearms, and yet not one has ever owned, used, or seen an “Assault Weapon”. At least they don’t think they have. Sounds a bit weird, but firearms owners didn’t invent “Assault Weapons”. The Media and the politicians did. Maybe these folks know what an “Assault Weapon” might be, but the rest of us don’t. 

Mostly, it appears that this new “Assault Weapon” ban will again be a “whatever we want it to be” definition reminiscent of the “Cop Killer Bullet”. And since the Media will be educating the public on how they should view “Assault Weapons” this will become interesting. And since Ms Feinstein is pushing the deal again, honesty shall not likely rear its ugly head.

Last time, the Media chimed in with their usual distortions and lies. On the TV news you could watch discussion of the “Assault Weapon” ban with machine guns firing in the background and the spokespersons from all the gun ban organizations talking about how horrible these mythical weapons are, how they are the guns of choice among the gangs roving the inner city neighborhoods, the source of the pile of dead gang members clogging the streets, and the scourge of civilization. And the gun ban folks got to paraphrase the argument they expected back from the spokespersons opposed to the “Assault Weapons” ban, like they always do. All while we tried to figure out just what firearms they were talking about.

Ultimately, they settled on a buffet of firearms, some grenade launchers that were already illegal, machine guns that have been illegal since 1934, and a variety of models judged solely by what they looked like.

The Media propaganda blitz continued for a while. Pistols became “high-powered “even though they weren’t. “Military Style” became style, for like the models strutting down the walkway in designer gowns, appearance was everything. Suddenly a black colored rifle was more dangerous than it had been the day before. Twenty-two caliber rifles also became “High-powered”, and if they had magazines that “Nobody Needs To Hunt Deer” we had to remind them that such caliber rifles were not legal for deer in most states because they are not powerful enough for that.

The “Assault Weapons” ban didn’t remove a single firearm from the street. It did limit the sale of some for a short while, and some were no longer sold, but everything they called an “Assault Weapon” that existed before the law passed was still there when the law expired ten years later. In fact, virtually identical firearm continued to be sold throughout the ten years of the ban. Lots of them. A few cosmetic changes made them legal, which suited the spirit of the law. It was all about appearances, after all.

Ms Feinstein is making the rounds as we speak, touting the reduction in crime brought about by her first “Assault Weapons” ban. And presumably she is talking up the carnage she claims has washed across the nation since the ban expired. Ms Feinstein has an active imagination, but her pronouncements are echoed by the Media and those spokespersons from the gun ban groups. 

Crime rates, including murder rates, which presumably would be influenced by an “Assault Weapons” ban have been falling steadily since the very early 90’s. The number of firearms in the hands of American citizens has climbed consistently since then. The number of firearms identical to the banned “Assault Weapons” grew by the thousands each year of the ban. An estimated three million are in private hands. And crime rates and murder rates fell. Most city police department don’t track the numbers of crimes committed with “Assault Weapons” because they see so few. Which hasn’t changed since the onset of the ban, and hasn’t changed since the ban expired in 2004. But Ms Feinstein shouts that the ban has been so very effective, and its expiration an unmitigated disaster. Ms Feinstein is a bit full of it. But I guess you don’t have to believe me. I admit that I have an agenda.

As before, it is difficult to get much information from the people opposing the new “Assault Weapons” ban. It’s not that we don’t have much to say, but it definitely is in line with the influence of Media and politicians. Control of information is critical to the passage of the next “Assault Weapons” ban. And if anyone wants an opposing view, they will have to work to find it.

I was completely indoctrinated back in the 1970’s, and today I argue with people similarly “educated”. To them, I am an idiot because they have never seen or heard anything that opposes the point of view they’ve been fed. They point to the fall in crime and go…”SEE!” Dianne was right!

Well, lots of things probably resulted in the drop in crime. A ban that never actually happened doesn’t seem to be one of these. And heaven help ya if you mention all those statistics that suggest that concealed carry permits in all those states just might have contributed.

Oh, I know. We’re right back to how nasty those handguns are, and how they shouldn’t be in the hands of citizens. The studies quoted by Media and politicians show that those guns are a bazillion times more likely to kill the baby in its crib than to defend the people in the house. EVERYBODY knows this!!!

OK sorry. I’ll go back to my corner and put on the dunce cap. I’ve other statistics, but the folks who run the gun ban organizations all say these aren’t true. The Media echoes them, and the politicians prattle on.

Thirty nine states now have concealed carry. Some for twenty years. Five million carry permits have been issued. Crime and murder rates go down, faster than the trend already mentioned, and the numbers all began changing at the onset of the CCW permit laws, and continue to this day as more permits are issued. States without CCW don’t see the same changes. Not one state has even considered rescinding the permits. The number of accidents involving permitted people is nearly zero. The number of crimes committed by permitted people is nearly zero. The number of murders is so much lower than the general public that it would amaze and confuse the Media and politicians who predicted a slaughter. 

The gun control groups have looked at these statistics, and a rare few have actually acknowledged their results. Mostly however, they have chosen to attack the messengers rather than address their message, or to cherry pick and cook the numbers to suit their preconceived notions, rather than let the numbers speak. Liars can, it appears, figure. 

I won’t suggest that CCW permits are the sole source of the improvement, but I will suggest that the chaos and carnage predicted for states that adopt CCW by the Media, politicians, and gun ban spokespeople have not come to pass. And I will suggest that those Media, politicians and gun ban spokespeople might prosper from looking at the rise in crime and murder that seem to accompany most of the gun control measures they have foisted upon the citizens. For that would be kind of embarrassing.

Of course, when a gun control law fails to do what it was intended to do, the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups have a predictable response. They need more laws. And as long as the indoctrination succeeds, they will get them.

The numbers are there, but you will have to do your own work to find them. Subject to interpretation, certainly. I’m not talking absolute truths here, but guess what…the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups all spout absolute truths. And the best way to swallow absolute truth is not to ever question it. But is that the best way?