Connecticut Gun Laws

It didn't take them long. Last Friday, on the way home from work, NPR had EJ Dionne calling for gun control. He must carry his blood-dancing shoes with him at all times, to be able to start the Casualty Can-Can on such short notice.

So, lacking any new ideas in gun control circles, we can count on them to trot out the same old crap. With that in mind, let's look at Connecticut's gun control laws, courtesy of those paragons of freedom, the Brady Bunch (no link for them, fuck 'em).

- It scores 58 0ut of 100 points Only New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California scored higher
- It requires background checks on long guns at gun shows
- It requires a state permit to purchase handguns
- It requires trigger locks be sold with all guns.
- It bans "assault weapons" with 2 or more "assault features"*

All this, and he-who-shall-not-be-named still managed to bring the crazy.

We definitely need to have a conversation, but not about gun control.

*I made that up, but it's accurate :-). Continue Reading

Another TN Gun Bill Advances

And the Commercial Appeal poops themselves:

Less than 24 hours after a man armed with two assault weapons, a shotgun and a handgun killed 11 in Alabama, a Tennessee legislative committee today approved a bill allowing handgun-carry licensees to carry loaded rifles and shotguns in their vehicles.

Gotta hand it to them, they never back away from Pants Shitting Hysteria.

. Continue Reading

New Definition of "Carload"

Vineland cops find carload of guns

Or more to the point:

a vehicle full of handguns and ammunition

So, what's a carload in New Jersey?

a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol;
a loaded .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun with five rounds in the magazine;
a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun with five rounds in the magazine;
a .32-caliber revolver loaded with three rounds;

There was also

a prop handgun; and a magazine containing three .22-caliber bullets.

Three loaded small caliber handguns with 13 rounds between them. My Smith 6906 holds that much by itself. I guess it must be an "arsenal".

. Continue Reading

Palm Beach Nonsense

Unc points us to another convoluted, anonymous editorial. Looks like the Anonymous Editorializerer has picked up and moved to Palm Beach:

By a vote of 5-4, the court ruled that firearm ownership is an individual right, even though the Second Amendment links that right to service in a militia.

You say "links", I say "provides an example of".

Though not strictly a Second-Amendment case, the lawsuit seeking to block Florida's new take-your-gun-to-work law provides a flavor of what's in store.

[snip]

That's what happens when the Legislature simply rubber-stamps whatever the NRA sends up. You'd like to think that politicians would be more careful, especially when declaring that gun rights trump private property rights.

Here I thought it was a case of property rights. My car, my property. Granted, there is still a big debate over where those rights begin and end, but it was about property rights and not about gun rights.

And, I bet the NRA wishes it had half the power you think they do.

Gun-rights groups say that the Second Amendment's meaning granting individual rights always has been clear. If it's so clear, why did it take Justice Scalia more than 50 pages of tortured explanation to arrive at that supposed clarity?

Beats me, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that he's a lawyer, and nothing a lawyer does is simple. Probably in an effort to keep bedwetters like yourself from finding "loopholes" or something.

The ruling says that individuals have a right to defend themselves in their own homes. But do they have the right to defend themselves with a fully automatic weapon? If they need a machine gun to feel safe at home, are they allowed to carry one on the street or to work?

Actually, if they were in lawful possession of said fully automatic weapon, then I'd say yes, they do have that right.

Carrying one in public? Somehow, I think most local laws prohibit such things. Nice to see you can whip out the hyperbole though. Although, I don't see why you feel the need. If your position were "reasonable", won't most people see it as such? Just asking.

Now, please, someone tell me what the hell this next sentence means:

As noted, the strict-interpretation majority loosely interpreted the Second Amendment.

So, they strictly interpreted loosely? Mercy.

Felons and the mentally ill will not be able to buy AK-47s from vending machines.

Like that had been up till this ruling?

You twit.

Again, it's no wonder they're anonymous. Continue Reading

More YNT Idiocy

Both Uncle and US Citizen have commented on this article in the You Nork Times.

Unc highlights the comment by ATF Special Agent William G. McMahon on NYC’s destroying of confiscated firearms:

We hope the steel mills use them to manufacture products for legitimate industries

Hmm, the man in charge of overseeing the firearms industry doesn't consider it legitimate? No conflicts there, nosiree.

US Citizen gets in-depth:

For the record, I disagree. Instead, I offer that the counterpoint that guns made available for protection against crime do more for the “greater good” than guns removed so they “can do no more harm.” As usual, the voices of the left (I’m talking to you, Al Baker) get the argument for civil rights, personal responsibility and liberty exactly wrong.

Exactly.

I, on the other hand, just want to comment on this little bit:

Reselling such a gun on the open market risks obscuring its history, he said.

Its history. Like, because it was maybe used in a crime, or more likely just confiscated from a minor or a felon, the gun now has a "history" and is somehow more likely to be involved in a future crime. Or something.

What is the recidivism rate for firearms, anyway? Continue Reading

Compare and Contrast

Here are two points of view regarding Ohio's recent pro-gun legislative moves:

Governor Strickland tells FOP where to stick it on gun bill; Republicans should do the same

Strickland Yields to Gun Lobby

Guess which one was written by the Buckeye Firearms Association and which one was written by "Jeff" and contains the following:

The NRA is a power-mad, out-of-control special interest that will never stop pushing no matter how outrageous its demands become. That means that the Governor, whether a gun supporter or not, has to draw reasonable lines and put his foot down or we're headed for the shoot-em-up madness of the old Wild West.

Anti-gunners. They may not be original, but they're consistent.

Actually, in the "Wild West", people had to drop their guns off at the Sheriff's office while in town. Continue Reading

BB Gun Lockdown

I guess it's all BB guns all the time here at the Alehouse:

According to school officials, Grace Warner Elementary School was locked down for a short time Thursday morning when a sixth grade girl accidentally shot a third grade girl on the playground with a BB gun.

The girl who was shot was not hurt and returned to class.

The "shooter" was taken to Jan Evans juvenile detention center. Authorities say they might arrest the boy who brought the gun to school.

Kudos to the person who put the quotation marks around the word "shooter".

Don't get me wrong, if someone were to shoot me or mine with a BB gun, action would be taken, but it wouldn't involve the police, detention facilities, or charges.

That's when we adults get together and discuss BB gun use and safety, remove BB gun rights from the shooter, and ground them for a week. After the spanking, of course.

Mountain, meet molehill. Sheesh. Continue Reading

Wonder How the Recoil Was?

Here's some PSH, complete with some interesting characteristics:

CRIME: Teen accused of shooting boy with BB gun

The boy told police he heard the bang and saw the flash, then felt something hit his right leg. Though he was in pain, the boy said he was scared and kept riding his bike until he rounded the corner at Washburn Street.

Officers responded to the scene and saw a small mark on the boys right leg.

That's one mean BB gun, I tell ya (emph mine).

New category - Evil BB Guns, because we all have the right to know. Continue Reading

Montreal Funny

This is hilarious:

The woman was standing at the corner of Emerald Ave. and Guelph Rd. about 5:30 a.m. when a man apparently fired the gun at her, Montreal police Constable Yannick Ouimet said.

The woman was able to walk back to her parents' house nearby and call 911. She is expected to survive her injuries.

What's that you say? I'm a heartless bastid for laughing at this poor woman? Here's the headline:

Woman shot with pellet gun in Côte St. Luc

O - freakin - Canada. Continue Reading

Tit For Tat

In comments here, someone got all self righteous and posted up a list of shootings from around the world dating back to 1996, then called him/herself "It has got to stop!!!"

In response, I submit this.

The archives only go back to 2003, but I'd bet a beer there's more on his site than listed in that comment.

Not that it would change the commenter's mind, but it's a pretty good counterpoint. Continue Reading

Heather Martens, Clueless

Wow, this lady is something else. first, we see she needs remedial English lessons focusing on sentence structure:

Neily argues that the Washington, D.C., handgun ban violates a personal right to any kind of firearm for the purpose of self-defense -- a new take on the Second Amendment that dismisses the idea that firearms should be "well-regulated."

Huh? Where does it say that? Show me, please. If you do manage to mangle the Second Amendment enough to prove your point, then provide me the definition of the word "regulated", as it was used in the late 18th century.

Here's a bit of advice for you, Heather - don't start out arguing your point with lies. It casts doubt on the rest it.

There's more, but I'm not wasting time with her. Continue Reading

Conjecture

Annette Clifford writes "On Parenting: Guns don't belong in the halls of learning"

Alternate Title - "What They Propose Scares Me, So I'll Make Up Stuff to Justify My Fear"

Some groups suggest the way to prevent killings on campus is to arm more students. The good guy could take out the bad guy before he kills so many, the argument goes.

In some cases, that might actually work.

Well, in many cases it already has.

In others, it could backfire.Student 1 sees student 2 enter the lecture hall and pull an assault rifle from a guitar case.

Student 1 draws his gun and shoots, just as student 3, fleeing in terror, enters the crosshairs.

Bang, innocent student dead.

Student 4, who's been texting his girlfriend, looks up when he hears the commotion, sees student 1 with a gun, pulls his, kills student 1.

So on and so forth, a chain reaction of more illogical violence.

Yes, illogical is the term I'd use here, too. There are a million "what ifs" you can apply to the situation. One thing I'm pretty sure you don't know is Rule Four. The person legally carrying in your scenario knows this, as it's taught everywhere, all the time.

That's why people shouldn't write on subjects they know nothing about. They look silly to people who do know, and scare those who don't.

Of course, if the latter was your objective, then good job!

Thanks to the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog for the links above. Continue Reading

Misguided Commentary and PSH

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: Where's the outrage over gun violence?

Geoff asks:

What's the problem? My take is we're afraid of the National Rifle Association. We're terrified that if we ask questions or make suggestions, we'll be painted as -- God forbid -- liberals. Or wimps. Or communists.

It's a bunch of hooey, but it seems the gun lobby has intimidated us into bed-wetting submission.

You shout give credit where it's due - not the "gun lobby", but to everyday Americans who vote out the politicians who want to take away their Constitutional rights. Judging from this initial statement, the bed-wetting is about to begin.

Yet, to borrow an apt saying, guns are the elephant in the room. In the wake of the Palo Verde homicide and other recent school-related shootings, we've heard school district leaders and police officials plead for better parenting, which is appropriate, but they haven't said a word about guns.

I'd call that addressing the problem instead of the symptom.

It's taboo because the NRA has effectively spread the message that any sort of regulation or enforcement of guns is tantamount to taking them away from law-abiding Americans.

Like that's not happening today.

This is a rhetorical leap of logic and patently untrue. Citizens are permitted to own registered firearms in every state in the union (the one exception being a vigorously challenged handgun ban in Washington, D.C.), and that's not likely to change.

Wrong-o Geoff. Very few states register firearms. The ones that do then make them illegal and confiscate them.

Rather than address every Brady talking point, I'm going to finish this by showing where this guy's head is really at:

A range of laws has been passed in many states attempting to address gun violence without taking registered firearms away from responsible citizens.
the problem isn't the guy who properly registers his handgun

There seems to be a constantly replenished underground stockpile of unregistered weapons

the problem is the guy who profits from selling unregistered firearms to anyone

going after guns that aren't registered

Can you say control freak? I knew you could.. Continue Reading

Maggie Mahar - PSH du Jour

So, Maggie Mahar asks What Ever Happened to Gun Control?

I'll tell ya, Maggie. It went away after politicians were voted out of office in droves after the 1994 Act that Banned Scary-Looking Rifles and Some Handguns. You call it the "Assault Weapons" Ban. I'm sure you want to blame the NRA for it, but the truth is the people (as in "We the People") are to blame.

You see, most of us don't share your irrational fear of inanimate objects. We also don't get our facts from Paul Helmke, because most times he's wrong. Like in this quote from him on your post:

As the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke points out: ‘One thing the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters had in common was that they both used high capacity ammunition magazines that would have been prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.’"

Those magazines were not banned, you dolt. They were readily available and legal for purchase, as long as they had been made before the ban went into effect. Just because you quote someone doesn't mean you're not responsible for what you put on the page.

Of course, it's not all your fault. In my opinion, whoever put this thought in your head should be beaten with a clue bat:

But I’ve never wished I had a gun. My feeling is that anyone fearless enough (or high enough) to break in, or try to mug me on the street could easily take the gun away from me—and then turn it on me.

Of course, they might be at risk of having said bat taken away....

But if you remember, what the amendment actually says is that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you think that, in 2008, we need armed local militias roaming the countryside, raise your hand.

I'm sure there are a few people in the Gulf Coast area who are raising their hands right now. The ones who had to fend off looters after Katrina. As to your reading of the Second Amendment, that's something that will be addressed in the near future, by the Supreme Court. The legal part anyway. Your lack of English comprehension is on you.

It’s not a sport that interests me, but I have known seemingly rational men who enjoyed hunting. None of them hunt with a handgun, however---or with an automatic weapon. All I ask is that people who buy a hunting rifle register--and provide some sort of proof that they really do plan to hunt with it. A hunting license would be a good start.

I'm going to make an assumption now. I assume when you are talking about an "automatic weapon" you are referring to the "assault weapon" and not the totally different "machine gun". Why am I doing this? Because most all of you gun-banners do it. No one hunts with the fully automatic machine gun because it's not accurate and impractical. People do, however, use handguns and "assault weapons" (your term, not mine) to hunt with because that's a good use for them.

I also guess you don't know much about hunting, because most people are required to get a hunting license in order to hunt. But, why let facts get in the way of a good hissie fit?

Talk about an easy target. But this is what liberals do all too often. They back away from an issue, even when common sense tells them that they’re right—and instead of leading, they pander to the tiny minority of voters who really believe that having handguns in our churches make us safer.

Made them safer in Colorado, didn't they?

If we were the "tiny minority", we'd all be disarmed by now. Fact is, you're in the ever-shrinking minority. Continue Reading

Taking Another College Student to the Woodshed

I see it as a part of their education experience, and I don't even charge tuition. This one, from Jessica Mayrer, is titled -

More guns, more violence

Alternate title: Repeating Bloomburg's Talking Points Makes Me Sound Smart

The group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is pushing to legalize carrying guns on the University of Montana campus and other colleges. They maintain arming college students with Colt .45s and Berettas will protect us from shooting sprees like those seen at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

No, they simply want those students already in possession of a permit the option to carry on campus. Big difference

Having a weapon in the home increases the chance of homicide. A household with a weapon is three times more likely to have a family member killed than a home without a gun, according to the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University

Put links to your facts. It goes a long way in validating your claims. Although I've heard all these claims before, I have to ask: How likely is it that a gun in the home could prevent a violent situation from occurring? Check here for an idea.

Learning how to drink, date and deal with life makes for moody students and sometimes-volatile situations. Placing guns into inexperienced hands ensures more violence, not less.

Again, this law would not put anything in anyone's hands that wasn't already there.

Guns don’t stop violence. It’s been proven in study after study. That’s like saying if UM hands out donuts, we’ll all lose weight. That kind of logic is paid for by gun manufacturers who profit from fear.

Well, if that donut is all you eat for the day, you will lose weight. As to your "guns don't stop violence" remark, I'll let one of your commenters say it for me:

Oh, you mean like in Pearl MS where a Vice Principal stopped a school shooting with his own .45?

Perhaps the Appalachian School of Law where two armed students stopped a school shooting.

Maybe the New Life Church in CO will support your theory.

Then again, maybe you have not really looked into this and are just going off your own phobia about armed people. Phobia - irrational fear not backed up by facts.

Posted by DanG on 03/04/2008 at 6:29 am

What he said.

Another study, conducted by the California Research Bureau, the research arm of the California Legislature, said states with lenient concealed weapon laws generally have higher violent crime and murder rates than states with stricter handgun laws.

Again, please reference your stats. Here's how you do it. All it takes is a little search engine action. Unlike the references you cite, which I could not find.

. Continue Reading

Fun With Comments

Everyone's been talking about this story by Ed Henry over at CNN.

I'm not gonna talk about the story, I'm just gonna comment on the commenters. Before I start, let me say I'm only doing a sampling, as there's more stupid-per-inch in that comment section than a Helmke post on HuffPo.

Daniel -

This just goes to show how incredibly dumb some Texans can be. Most people would step to their door and demand the stranger leave.

Really? I'm glad you told us that. I guess there'll be no more home invasions now - just demand they leave!

Cat -

Wow! Talk about taking America's image in the world down a notch! While people should be able to defend their life and property there is nothing about a man stopping in front of your house while talking on a cell phone that is threatening. Texas really needs to reexamine its laws because even though she didn't use her gun, she threatened the man's life for literally no reason at all. I can think of all kinds of benevolent reasons to approach someone's house. Someone could be selling girl scout cookies, circulating a political petition, a new neighbor stopping by to introduce themself, etc. Bringing a gun out without a threat invites tragedy. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Well, Cat, you're a real glass-half-full kinda gal, aren't you? What's absolutely ridiculous is your rose-colored glasses view of the world. You have no idea as to the intent of a stranger at your door. None whatsoever.

nick -

another argument for stricter gun control laws. Its insane that someone would feel the need to use a gun for something that would have easily been solved by putting up a fence.

No words. I have no words for that one.

PD from CA -

How… uh… charming. So much for baking cookies… packing pistols is the trend for today's well-armed grandmas. What an ugly country we've become.

There's a lot of "blame America" going on in comments, as PD shows us. See, in PD's world, the elderly are immune from violence. All they do is bake cookies.

KO from Utah -

What if it was just a bunch of kids running through her property. That happens everyday in all the civilized parts of the country. Would that crazy old woman pull a gun on them?

Probably not, as the kids would be known to the lady, unlike a full-grown man. From Denmark.

HomoSapien -

Moral of the story?? This is exactly why Americans are seen as violent by the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, it IS OK for a person to inadvertently walk on to someone's property. Such incidents end with a "sorry" and possibly a handshake.

Or, a home invasion.

Truth -

To all the xenophobes and right wing media-haters who have posted here: first, she did not know he was a 'foriegner'; second she did not know he was with the media. He could have been anyone from anywhere - to the gun-totting nitwit, it did not matter.

Exactly. She didn't know who it was. That's why she had a gun.

Thanks for baldilocks for pointing out that comments were so much fun.

Finally, here's Dave -

This is news why?

What he said. Continue Reading

PSH At the Tennesseean

Some homegrown PSH:

We should never say never when it comes to stopping violence in this country. Consider, rather, that officials simply have not gone far enough to deal with the availability of lethal weapons.

See where this is going, doncha?

Despite the outcry last April after the worst mass killing in U.S. history, Virginia legislators are still wrestling with gun reform legislation. President Bush signed a new federal law in January to expand the federal database for screening gun applicants, but the law contains a gaping loophole that allows weapons to be bought at gun shows without background checks.

This, written by someone who has obviously never been to a gun show. Here's the deal: most sellers at gun shows are dealers, and all dealers have to conduct a background check, regardless of where they conduct the sale. This "gaping loophole" does not exist. Sales between private parties don't require a background check, but again, the location of that private transaction does not matter.

It is disturbing that after repeated incidents of campus carnage dating back to Columbine in 1999 and earlier, organizations continue to block effective gun-control legislation.

How much more effective can it get? An outright ban on weapons at schools? Oh, wait. That's already in place.

Even worse, some have proposed allowing more guns on campuses, under the Wild West rationale that if every student and teacher is armed, they can defend themselves against a lone, irrational shooter.

No, the proposed law simply aims to let the already licensed carry on school grounds. It's not about arming everyone. Never has been. Also, please tell me how a "wild west" scenario would play out on campus? The same way they play out everywhere else guns are legally carried? Oh, wait (again). It doesn't happen, does it?

Bills such as one before the Alabama legislature would allow guns on state college campuses if the students are properly licensed — as was Kazmierczak.

While I agree he shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun, I don't think the gentleman in question had a carry permit. He had a Firearms Owner Identification Card, which does not allow a person to carry. You're twisting the facts to suit your agenda.

Just the opposite course should be pursued. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence advocates closing the gun-show loophole; limiting bulk purchases of handguns, which would cut down on illegal gun trade; and an outright ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Kazmierczak and Cho each used the latter in their killing spree. Such weaponry was illegal except for military and police use until Congress let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004.

Oh, Jeeze, Louise, get a grip. First, the ATF is notified anytime a person buy two or more handguns at a time. Second, those "high capacity" magazines were still legal to buy, sell and own during the "assault weapons" ban. I'm using those quotation marks for a reason. They're your words, designed to scare your readers. I'm just supplying the scare quotes. You left them off.

The problem of mass violence in America runs deep, and gun control alone will not solve it.

That's the first sensible thing I've read here all morning. Gun control obviously doesn't work. Allowing people to defend themselves might. It's worth a shot, don't you think?

At least they allow comments, even if they won't own up to who wrote it. Continue Reading

Marian Wright Edelman - Gun Banner

The Supreme Court must uphold D.C’s handgun ban - It's for the children!

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn a lower court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s 1976 handgun ban designed to reduce violent crime. If the Court reverses the lower court and upholds the ban, it will keep in place a crucial measure for the protection of the health and safety of our children in our nation’s capital, and in communities nationwide.

Ms Edelman, DC is one of the most violent, crime-ridden city in the nation. How do you reconcile this fact with your statement?

Those seeking to uphold the ban contend the measure was written for an 18th century America that did not maintain a large standing army. They see the amendment as providing for the collective rights of state militias of citizens who, if called upon, would provide their own weapons in response to an emergency.

Actually, that's only partly true. A militia is also useful in responding to government tyranny, like the tyranny we revolted from in the first place.

They argue that the Constitution does not deny communities the right to enact gun-control laws designed to protect public safety. It is important to note that the D.C. ban does not prohibit shotguns or rifles.

It is equally important to note that those shotguns and rifles had to be either locked away or rendered inoperative. Either way, they were useless. There would be no way to respond to an emergency quickly under current DC law, regardless of the firearm used.

As organizations committed to the well-being of all children, we see handguns as an ominous threat to the health and safety of our young people.

I'm sure there a lot of criminals breathing a sigh of relief now, knowing where you see the threat.

In the brief, we state and believe that “the absence of handguns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective method to prevent firearms-related injuries to children and adolescents.”

Education is also an effective method to reduce firearms-related injuries. As is keeping criminals off the streets.

Our brief further asserts that while “statistics reflect the devastating impact of handguns on people of all ages, handguns pose a unique danger to children and adolescents. Handguns are light, portable and easy to handle, they are also accessible, romanticized in media available to adolescents, and fascinating to children.”

Fascinating to children? Not all of them. If a 5 year old knows better, then I'd have to place the blame elsewhere.

Gun-control measures in other countries do work. Australia integrated gun-control laws and government-sponsored gun-buyback programs that resulted in cutting firearm homicides by more than half.

Yes, but that isn't America:

Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

My question is: If the ban is so effective, why isn't DC the safest city in America, instead of one of the most dangerous? If you can answer that question satisfactorily, I'll listen.

Like that'll happen. Continue Reading

More "Hidden" Weapons

I guess because "assault weapon" won't work when talking about carrying a firearm legally on campus, the new scare term the media is going to use is "hidden weapons". Scary, isn't it? No one likes to think about "hidden weapons" now, do they?

I first noticed it here, and thanks to Joe, I have another one:

Utah students hide guns, head to class

Gosh, we're going to need another change of underwear after this one, aren't we? (all emphasis is mine)

Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.

His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.

"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.

"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."

First, bravo, Nick! Second, Griselda, if that's the way you feel, don't watch this. Feel safer now? Truth be told, most people who carry firearms legally(like Nick) shoot more often than some "trained officials" do. I still haven't decided if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Talk to Nick, maybe he'll take you shooting. You could get lunch out of him, too I bet.

Student Kevin Rechtenbach of the University of Utah said he was open to carrying a gun, but not certain that would solve problems.

"But you see, that is where the problem lies: Everybody will end up carrying concealed weapons, and everyday problems will be solved with guns rather than words or even fists."

Kevin, you do not need to carry a gun if that's how you think people resolve their differences. Remember, it's already legal where you are. How many times has this happened? None, I bet.

Truthfully, this article isn't as bad as I first thought it would be. They do cover the pro-carry side as well, but still, this "hidden weapon" thing that's starting up is bugging me to no end.

UPDATE: Marko has more.

Pro-gun matchmaking. Am I good or what? =).

Continue Reading

Media Bias?

Not conceald carry, no. It's hidden weapons!

Hidden weapon bill clears panel

Yes, Virginia, there is PSH:

RICHMOND - A bill to allow people with a concealed weapons permit to bring a hidden handgun into a restaurant if they do not drink won approval of a House of Delegates committee Monday.

Man, I'm scared already. I better check my drawers.

“Welcome to the wild, wild West,” said Del. James M. Scott, D-Merrifield, after he was one of five delegates on the Militia and Police Committee to oppose the bill unsuccessfully. The panel approved it on a 16-5 vote.

Just as wild as all those other states that descended into chaos after passing similar bills! New underwear, please!

“We’ve bested Texas. We’ve bested Alaska,” in terms of loosening the restrictions on guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, Scott said of the so-called “guns in bars” bill that is similar to measures that had passed the House in previous years only to die in the Virginia Senate.

Stereotype much? I can tell which part of Virginia you're from.

Here's the interesting part:

Under current state law, a gun owner can carry a weapon into a restaurant serving alcohol if the handgun is not concealed and can drink until the restaurant cuts him off. Any restaurant owner has a right to post a sign saying no one may enter with a gun, and the bill does not change that right

How cool is that?

(all emphasis mine)

Very cool. Continue Reading