Saturday, July 26, 2014

Wow, serious hypocracy...

Think of all the people who will do anything to fight voter fraud...

Yet, what do they do about disqualified persons who want to buy guns????

Wouldn't it also be funny if people who registered to vote, voted against the NRA's positions.  After all, the reality challenged right has brought about voter ID laws to try to prevent people from voting.

Maybe people will see these ads and realise they need to vote and vote against the NRA and the rest of the reality challenged right's agenda.

To use the NRA's own slogan against them:


No such thing as an assault rifle...

despite loads of evidence to the contrary:
This is just the tip of the iceberg since there are loads of old ads that call them exactly that.

And you wonder why I call you lot the Reality Challenged Right?  Or is that yet another characteristic of the condition?

The logical fallacy of false equivalency.

The person who wrote this may have been killed by a gun nut.  Anyway, this is pretty useful since this is a type of fallacious argument which is used a lot in this "debate".This is a wonderful piece-- it is a clear explanation of why certain gun lobby talking points are ridiculous.

What is a false equivalency?
It is a logical fallacy.
You are a libtard/pinko/homo, why should I listen to you? Logic rules remain the same wherever you fall on the political spectrum. Even after showing gun owners the Wikipedia entry, they will continue to use it immediately afterwards and cling to it desperately. That is why this was created.
What is the definition of false equivalency? “False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.” Wikipedia
I still don’t believe you. What is the structure of the argument? If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. Id.
That doesn’t make sense to me. Why does my argument look nonsensical to people who aren’t supporters of my position? Well, when was the last time you heard of someone bringing a car into a school or movie theater and killing and wounding 70 people with it in 4 minutes? Here is how your argument appears to people without a gun proliferation agenda:
Nuclear weapons explode (c) but are still just tools (d). Guns are merely tools (d) that shoot people (e). Since they are both (d) tools they are both equivalent. Because they are merely (d) tools, nuclear weapons should be treated the same as guns under the Second Amendment, and citizens should be allowed to conceal carry them into schools, courthouses, or government buildings.
Well that’s a stupid argument, what are other kinds of false equivalencies that gun owners use?
The variations are endless, but here are some common ones, all of which have actually been used on reddit:
-Guns and alcohol are equivalent, because they both ______
-Guns and cars are equivalent, because they both ______
-Guns and knives are equivalent, because they both ______
-Guns and bleach are equivalent, because they both ______
-Guns and fists are equivalent, because they both ______
-Guns are equivalent to soda, because they both ______
-Gun and stamp collecting are equivalent, because they both _____
-Guns and banana cream pie are equivalent, because they both____
-Guns and swimming pools are equivalent, because they both _____
-Guns and frying pans are equivalent, because they both _____
-Guns and _______ are equivalent, because they both _____
And those are all false equivalencies? Yes.
Are you sure? Yes.
Really? Because I would really like that to be not true. Everyone in /r/guns uses them constantly, and they get tons and tons of upvotes for it! Doesn’t that mean they are even a little right? No. Justin Bieber is pretty popular within his bubble, doesn’t mean it makes sense to people viewing it from the outside.
Can you make the logical fallacy appear absurd in a different way? Sure. Imagine cars are just as legal as they are now, resulting in 33,000 traffic fatalities each year. Now, imagine guns are completely banned and there are zero deaths from their use each year. Would the argument that guns are exactly equivalent to soda sway people to change the law?
If our hypothetical government body could pass a law that instantly implemented the current United States gun proliferation laws while simultaneously handing out 270,000,000 guns to the civilian population, would they do it based upon the fact that obesity is also a problem in the United States so we shouldn't worry about people being shot?
Considering the fact that 30,000 people would then be killed each year and 100,000 wounded, the answer is likely no. And they would certainly not do so under the pretense that soda and firearms should be treated equivalently. Or cars. This example applies to each of the false equivalencies given above. The argument is patently absurd.
Why has this been downvoted a million times? Because there are few good arguments for guns in our society so taking away a popular one, however incorrect it may be, further weakens the talking points. We also only send pro-gun types here to view this and they are not particularly happy to learn that their father was wrong when they taught them this false equivalency or that they have been using a really stupid argument around their loved ones unchecked for most of their lives.
They may also be embarrassed to learn that their loved ones may already know this and are just pretending to agree with them.
What do you think about gun control? The ability to use logic and to correctly reason should be a basic skill for everyone, but is essential for those who carry lethal weapons. Gun owners should have to complete the following sentence before purchasing a gun to show that they can perform basic reasoning: Comparing guns to ________ is a false equivalence because __________.

Interesting thoughts

Some people don't know what things were like 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago--why should they have an idea what they were like 200+ years ago.

I'm not sure how many people remember that Kennedy was criticised for being a Catholic during the 1960 presidential campaign.

That said: check out this poster.

About 5,000 copies of this flyer were distributed around Dallas in the days before President Kennedy’s November 22, 1963 visit, accused Kennedy of a range of offenses, from being “lax” on Communism, to “appointing anti-Christians to Federal office,” to lying to the American people about his personal life.

The poster was designed by General Edwin A. Walker, a Texan who served in World War II and the Korean War, who had resigned from the Army in 1961 after a Kennedy-ordered investigation found that he had violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity on the job, by distributing John Birch Society literature to his troops. Walker then moved to Dallas and became a leader of right-wing activity in the city.

Look familiar?

See also:

Lawful Minnesota Gun Owner Shoots Neighbor 4 Times

Local news reports

From the complaint:
When officers pointed out the inconsistencies in his statement, Pickering said that he would give officers "the honest story". He said that he had taken his children for a ride with the lawn mower and that after he returned home a girl came to the front door and threatened him. He said that the girl confronted him about trespassing and said that if she saw him back on the property she was going to take action. Pickering said that he then went over to the house and knelt down by a pine tree "... and I waited, and I waited, and I waited." He said that after 15 to 20 minutes the front door opened and the girl came out and that he shot her. He said that he shot twice from a distance of 15 to 25 yards. Pickering stated that after the first shot the girl said "Oh God" and dropped down, and that he then shot her again. He said that he was very upset with the girl coming to his house and that he had a lot of thoughts racing through his mind as he was walking towards her home. When asked about the confrontation at his home, Pickering said that his family had not been directly threatened by her. He said that he was upset with the girl, and said that she was a "bitch".
Pickering's Facebook page reveals a man who loved guns and may have been struggling with PTSD.

Guns in Florida Airports

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

"The TSA takes this very seriously," but not seriously enough thanks to the loose Florida gun laws and the disgraceful nonchalance with which gun misuse is met.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Quote of the Day

I am really amazed at people who say they support the Constitution, yet can talk about armed rebellion against the United States:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
US Constitution, Article III, Section iii

Never forget WHO Jim Brady was...

He was Ronald Reagan's press secretary prior to the assassination attempt.  That said here is Ronald Reagan on

Gun Control
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time, according to

In 1986 as president, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.”

After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers.

In 1991 Reagan wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times stating his support for the Brady Bill and noted that if the Brady Bill had been in effect earlier, he never would have been shot. He also urged then President H.W. Bush to drop his opposition to the bill and lobbied other members of Congress to support the bill.

In 1994 Reagan wrote to Congress urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

For some reason, the right has decided that these policies are somehow "wrong" and that they are in some way "liberal", yet there are loads of conservative statements from way back similar to those made by Reagan.

What's up?  Why play with public safety?

"Sycophantic Lickspittles"

Nothing like a politician who votes where the money is coming from if you are going to use a bullshit term like this.

If the "Tea Party" crowd isn't bought and paid for, then they are the village idiots.

Of course, as I have been pointing out, the village idiot is the perfect conservative.

The Newest NRA Poster Child - Shaneen Allen

Shaneen Allen


As we mentioned when the story broke, it is absolutely unbelievable that she didn't know about the difference between NJ laws and PA laws. She lied about that. At the very least she's another scofflaw gun owner who lives by the adage "bad laws be damned." And when caught, there's no admission of having made a mistake or having done wrong, only blame and finger-pointing at the overly severe laws in NJ which "make criminals" out of poor persecuted gun owners.

The best part of this whole charade is the gun-rights attempt to paint her as not only an innocent, but as some kind of paragon of motherly virtue.  Dozens of articles have described her as a "mom," as one who works two jobs, in other words, as a saintly martyr.

These are the same folks who went berserk about the supposedly misleading photos of Trayvon Martin. The gun-rights fanatics wrote hundreds of blog posts and thousands of comments about how the left was purposely misrepresenting the appearance of Trayvon.

Where's the similar outrage over this unbelievable photo (photoshopped?) that Ammoland published? Where's the similar outrage over the barrage of pro-gun articles proclaiming her lofty and innocent status. I don't hear anyone on the gun-control side screaming about it. So, let me be the first.

Castle Doctrine Gone Wild - California 80-year-old Satisfied after Killing Fleeing Pregnant Home Intruder


Raw Story

An 80-year-old Long Beach man could be facing charges after admitting he shot a home intruder twice in the back, killing her, as she ran away and despite the fact that she told him she was pregnant.
Tom Greer returned to his home Tuesday to find it being ransacked by a man and a woman.
“I walked in on them,” Greer told KNBC. “And they jumped on me in the hallway.”
Greer said that he was tackled and thrown to the ground but managed to get his .22-caliber revolver and confronted them as they ransacked a safe containing cash.
Seeing the gun, the couple ran out of the house and started down an alley.
“The lady, she couldn’t run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice,” Greer explained. “She’s dead, but he got away.”
“She says, ‘Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant! I’m going to have a baby!’ And I shot her anyway,” Greer said.

Dear Mom and Dad.

Simple proposition: the presence of a firearm means there is a risk of a firearm accident.

Now, watch people do everything they can do deny that fact. I've noticed most of the "pro-gun" arguments try to refute that proposition.

Despite the studies which point out that a gun in the home poses more of a danger than a benefit, people will deny that.

Do you REALLY want to protect your family and keep them safe?

Or is that just bullshit and you would bring the menace into your home for some insane ideological point?


Update: Woman Accidentally Shoots Herself While Scaring off Intruder

More here.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Wild Bill for America Goes Completely Off the Rails - It's Obama's Plan to Bring Chaos to America

If you believe life begins at conception

You have a problem.

Between 30% and 50% of conceptions (some suggest more [1]) end in spontaneous miscarriage. This results in a far higher number of terminated pregnancies from spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) than from intentional abortion.

Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for miscarriage.

The largest source of death is miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion. Indeed, if one considers a fertilized egg an “equally valuable” human life with “full human rights,” then spontaneous miscarriage is the single leading cause of death for "fully-valuable human beings".  And that includes if you are also going to say that life begins at implantation.

That would mean that God causes the most abortions if you are looking at this from a theological viewpoint ratter than a scientific one. In fact, perhaps we should go with the medical term "spontaneous abortion" rather than "miscarriage".

If we did that, would women who have miscarriages be guilty of aborting their foeti?  Even if we go beyond conception, we also have miscarriages up until birth and still-births.

The question is then "when does a foetus become viable"? 

In a secular society, which is what the United States happens to be, it really isn't the place of religion to dictate that type of decision.  In fact, it is is properly a decision which should be made by a women informed by her physician: not the state.

And definitely not religion.

Especially if god happens to be the worst culprit for causing abortions.

Aditionally, you also have to admit that one needs to provide proper pre-natal care if you are going to take the attitude that the pre-born have some right to life.  Unfortunately, most of the ideologically pro-lifers hate "Obamacare", let alone a single payer system of health care.

In fact, I find the ideologically "pro-life" tend to be lost on the actual concept of all this.

Especially since most "abortions" happen naturally.

[1]  The President's Council on Bioethics,  PCBE: Transcripts (January 16, 2003):  Session 1: Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account

Another Botched Execution - Arizona Inmate Takes 2 Hours to Die

Joseph Rudolph Wood III

LA Times

A convicted murderer in Arizona gasped and snorted for more than 90 minutes after a lethal injection Wednesday, his ATTORNEYS and witnesses said, dying in a botched execution that prompted the governor to order an investigation and the state Supreme Court to mandate that the materials used in the procedure be preserved. 

Joseph Rudolph Wood III's execution almost certainly will reinvigorate the national debate over the death penalty. He received an injection at 1:52 p.m. at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence. The execution became so prolonged that reporters witnessing the execution counted several hundred of his wheezes before he was finally declared dead at 3:49 p.m. — nearly two hours after the procedure began. 

The incident comes in a year in which lethal injections had already triggered controversy over botched procedures and secrecy.

Any street junkie in the country could do a better job than these bumbling idiots in charge of the lethal injection protocols. And where are all the self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars.  Any hint of violating the 2nd Amendment and they're up on their high horse, but violating the 8th is no problem for them - the hypocrites.

Oh, and let's not overlook the fact that he was a lawful gun owner who turned bad.  He wasn't a gang banger or a drug dealer, nor was he a polite and respectful gun owner. He was another dangerous maniac who should have been disarmed before he went berserk.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Billy Johnson [finally] says something intelligent.

I guess if I were to label someone a pseudo-intellectual, it would have to be the NRA's Billy Johnson since he can appear to think and say some interesting things, but (APU) they don't stand up to scrutiny.

In this case he accidentally made my case for me. That means he really doesn't think through what he says--he just likes the sound of his voice and thinks he looks hip.

Seriously,  if goofball wants to follow what the founding fathers believed in, then he should require military training in schools. 

After all, the Second Amendment does start out "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state".

But, the "pro-gun" side wants to forget that part and say it's irrelevant, but that means the Second Amendment is garbage.

After all, why start the sentence with something that is unrelated to the rest of the sentence?

That is called a nonsequitur.  You are saying the Founding Fathers wrote gibberish.
The Second Amendment was implemented by the Militia Acts of 1792, not the Guns for Irresponsible Dickheads Acts of 1792.
In fact, did hard enough and do some serious research and you will find the part about the "well-regulated militia" (which means under civilian control--not an armed mob) is integral to the Second Amendment.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.--Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890
I've noticed the hemming and hawing whenever anyone mentions that the Second Amendment right is tied to the responsibility of actually serving in an Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 Militia.  Not saying that you are liable for service as a member of the "unorganised militia" since that designation confers no right or duty other than you can be called up for service.

It's the same thing as saying having a draft card makes you a member of the US military.

Anyway, I can guarantee that once it becomes obligatory and the duties are reimposed that we will see a repeat of what Justice Story mentions above.

So, I say bring it--make people perform the requisite duties under the Second Amendment.

And that means military training in addition to marksmanship.

Then, let's see how many people will be screaming for their Second Amendment rights.

BTW, I support your Second Amendment right--please go to your nearest National Guard recruiting office to exercise it.

As I said, that's not what you want to hear, but what you should be hearing.

See also:

Tick, Tock, Glock

One of the problems with the gun violence debate is that it tries to be scientific in how it presents the issue.  That works well if you just want to go by numbers.  But numbers don't always get the point across.

The "pro-gun" side has used emotion (fear) to get its point across for ages.

The blog "Thoughts at Large" came up with a really great post, Tick, Tock, Gloc, which poins out how the numbers play out:
According to the Brady Campaign, on average, for the five most recently available years for which statistics are available, every day in America there are:
291 people in America are shot (including 52 children (ages 0-19)
87 people die from gun violence:
32 are murdered (including 6 children)
51 kill themselves (including 2 children)
2 die unintentionally
1 is killed by police intervention
1, intent unknown
205 are shot and survive:
148 shot in an assault (including 34 children)
10 survive a suicide attempt (including 1 child)
45 are shot unintentionally (including 9 children)
2 are shot in a police intervention
 If we take these numbers and divide them equally over the course of a day, this is an average day in America.
The rest of the blog does a good job of how this plays out in reality.

Now repeat this, every day, until enough of us demand a better society.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Bibles and guns? does this offend you?

I'm sure the type of person who needs to have flags, guns, and Bibles probably won't find this too offensive.  It might even be a type of Rorschach test to see where you are on the political spectrum.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the prisoners.  That passage is considered a major aspect of Christianity and is the cornerstone of Christian socialism.  Another key statement in the New Testament that is an important component of Christian socialism is Luke 10:25-37 that follows the statement "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" with the question "And who is my neighbour?", and in the Parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus gives the revolutionary response that the neighbour includes anyone in need, even people we might be expected to shun.

Socialism owes more to the Bible than Marx.

Acts 4, verse 32:
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions were his own, but they shared everything they had."
and Acts 4, verses 34 and 35:
"There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from their sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
John Chrysostom explained his attitude towards the rich and wealth by saying:
I am often reproached for continually attacking the rich. Yes, because the rich are continually attacking the poor. But those I attack are not the rich as such, only those who misuse their wealth. I point out constantly that those I accuse are not the rich, but the rapacious; wealth is one thing, covetousness another. Learn to distinguish.

Big Surprise - Most Gun Owners are White, Male and Conservative

Pew Data
Guns dot com

According to recently published data compiled by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans who have a gun in their home are white conservative republican males living in rural environments with children under the age of 18.

To examine the demographic and political characteristics of gun owners and their households, Pew reviewed data gathered from 3,243 adults from April 29 to May 27. Of those, 1,196 said they or someone in their household owned a gun, pistol or rifle.

The survey spans the entire continental United States with 34 percent located in the west, 35 percent in the midwest, 38 percent in the south and 27 percent in the northeast, and with that regional differences emerge.

“White southerners are significantly more likely to have a gun at home (47%) than whites in other regions,” explains Rich Morin, senior editor at the Pew Research Center’s social and demographic trends project. “But because blacks disproportionately live in the South and are only half as likely to have a gun at home as whites, the overall rate for the southern region falls to 38%.”

Guns and Other Weapons at Airports

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Just Your Typical Responsible Gunowner

Meet Second Amendment Rights fan Brady Oestrike.

Likes:  OathKeepers, the AR-15 Gunowners of America, MI Coalition for Responsible Gunowners, the NRA, renaissance fairs and various gun and ammo suppliers and "militias."

Dislikes: President Obama, unions, anti-gun folks.

What a catch!  Did I miss anything?

Oh, yeah.....
A pregnant teenager and her boyfriend, 25, were both killed, after connecting with the wrong man for a sexual encounter through Craigslist. Brady Oestrike, who had a large collection of assault rifles, allegedly strangled 18 year old Brooke Slocum and decapitated Charles Oppenneer. Slocum, who was eight months pregnant, was allegedly held captive before he death.According to the AP, "It's likely that Oppenneer died of some kind of head trauma, but that couldn't be determined without his head being found, police said."Oestrike shot himself to death after crashing his car in an attempted escape from police.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Colorado Man Buys Gun and Uses it to Commit Murder the Same Day

Williams Anderson Amaya
Williams Anderson Amaya made a legal purchase of a handgun from a retailer in Grand Junction on the day that authorities say he fatally shot his aunt and uncle in El Jebel, according to a preliminary investigation.
Investigators with the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office looked into the purchase and found Amaya was cleared in a required federal background check performed by the retailer, Brown said.
The Eagle County Sheriff’s Office said Amaya purchased a .380-caliber semi-automatic pistol.
Amaya, who was born in El Salvador, was a legal alien in the United States, according to authorities. There are no restrictions on legal aliens legally purchasing and possessing a firearm, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s website. The federal background check looks to see if the person wanting to make a purchase was convicted of any crime that required imprisonment for more than one year, “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution,” is under a court restraining order for threatening an intimate partner or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, among other factors, the CBI’s website said.
“For us, the significance of the purchase is the time,” Brown said. Information wasn’t immediately available on when Amaya entered the retail gun shop or when he cleared the background check and completed the purchase. Brown said it was during the daytime Saturday, July 12. Amaya is accused of shooting the Lopezes at about 11 p.m. that night.
Amaya was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, indicating that authorities believe it was premeditated. Autopsies showed the victims were both shot four times and died immediately.
The shootings occurred after Amaya argued with his aunt about the family dog, according to an arrest warrant affidavit by a detective working the case. However, Brown said there “is no obvious reason why” the shooting occurred. Amaya was renting a room in the Lopez house.

Kids and Guns - The Never Ending Story

In Chicago At Least 40 People Shot Over the Weekend - 4 Deaths

Huffington Post

An 11-year-girl was shot and killed during a slumber party as violence struck Chicago over the weekend, local media outlets reported on Sunday.
At least 40 people were shot, and four killed, in weekend violence in the third-largest U.S. city, the NBC affiliate in Chicago reported.
The deaths included an 11-year-old girl, shot in the head inside a first-floor bedroom on Friday night after someone fired a gun from outside the house, said Chicago Police Officer Jose Estrada.
Shamiya Adams, who died the next day, had been sitting on the floor during a sleep-over at her best friend's home, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The Chicago Police Department on Sunday had not released an official tally of the weekend violence. But reports of another outbreak of gunfire came as the city has been grappling with a wave of summer violence.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Mental Illness and Gun Control


The National Institutes of Health estimates that over ¼ of persons 18 years and older in the US suffer from some type of mental health disorder. The World Health Organization indicates that this is the highest percentage in the world. Even though the statistics may be somewhat biased because mental health issues are likely reported more frequently in the United States than elsewhere, it is still an alarming number.

The issue becomes even more concerning when you combine the mental health problem with the wide availability of fire arms. There are currently about 270 million firearms in the United States, and they are relatively easy to acquire.

The NRA and the irrational cult of fire arms in our country has contributed to not allowing background checks to be implemented for people wanting to purchase fire arms.

14 States Can Now Boast of More Gun Deaths than Car Deaths

Local news reports

Oregon was one of 14 states where gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 2011, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center.

Data was compiled from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

This marks the third year the Violence Policy Center has issued an annual report comparing gun deaths to motor vehicle deaths by state. The center is a nonprofit organization working to stop gun death and injury.

Oregon's number of gun deaths also exceeded its motor vehicle deaths in 2009 and 2010, according to the center.

Gun deaths include suicide by firearm, homicides, and fatal unintentional shootings. Motor vehicle deaths include both vehicle occupants and pedestrians.

The 13 other states where gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 2011 were: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia.

Shameful, Disgraceful Decision by the Washington State Supreme Court

Amina Kocer-Bowman, pictured in a 2012 photo from KOMO/4. Amina was shot in the stomach by a 9-year-old classmate who'd taken a gun from his mother's boyfriend.
Amina Kocer-Bowman, pictured in a 2012 photo from KOMO/4. Amina was shot in the stomach by a 9-year-old classmate who'd taken a gun from his mother's boyfriend.


A Bremerton man previously convicted of assault after his stepson accidentally shot a classmate with his pistol has been cleared by the state Supreme Court.

In a split decision, a majority of the high court found that Douglas Bauer shouldn’t have been convicted of assault after his girlfriend’s then-9-year-old son accidentally shot a classmate with his handgun.

Reversing the trial court’s decision, the majority ruled that Bauer’s conduct – leaving a loaded gun unsecured – didn’t cause the non-fatal shooting at the Bremerton elementary school.

“Bauer’s act of gun ownership, in contrast, is not felonious or criminal,” Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote for the majority. “His decision to keep loaded weapons around the house is not, in itself, a crime in this state, either.”

Stand Your Ground Laws Lead To More Homicides, Don't Deter Crime

Researchers at Texas A&M University, for a study published in the Journal of Human Resources, concluded that homicides had increased by 8 percent in the more than 20 states that had passed "castle doctrine" laws, many of which include Stand Your Ground provisions. That equals 600 additional homicides every year in those states, they wrote.

At the same time, however, the researchers found no detectable decrease in burglary, robbery or aggravated assault.

"Collectively, these findings suggest that incentives do matter in one important sense: lowering the threshold for the justified use of lethal force results in more of it," the authors concluded in the report. "On the other hand, there is also a limit to the power of incentives, as criminals are apparently not deterred when victims are empowered to use lethal force to protect themselves."

As the Texas A&M researchers noted in that 2013 study, their findings aligned with those of a 2012 study published by Georgia State University on Stand Your Ground laws.

The Georgia State researchers found that homicides in states with those laws increased by 7.1 percent. In particular, they detected an increase in homicides among white males, while the effect was mostly negligible among white females and blacks.

"Whether or not these killings should be considered justified in this case is beyond the purpose of this paper," they wrote. "However, it cannot be argued that the SYG laws are saving the lives of innocent people in this scenario as these individuals would not have been killed in the first place."

The Incredible Stupidity of Gun-Rights Fanatics - Comparing Bloomberg and Watts to Nazis

Bloomber's MAIG joins forces with Shannon Watt's Mom's Demand Action to disarm the American population

via Ammoland

Missouri Church Gives Away AR-15s

AR-15 'Assault Rifle' Giveaway By A Church Has Christians Arguing Over Gun Control Laws... And Lexicon


According to the Joplin Globe, the AR-15 giveaway is intended to “get more people to follow Jesus” and Heath Mooneyham, lead pastor of Ignite Church, believes that arming the congregation is a good method for doing this:
“If we get people in the door, we get to preach the gospel. If we can get more people to follow Jesus, I’ll give away 1,000 guns. I don’t care.”
The reason that Ignite is giving away free guns is biggest the 18 to 35 age group of the Millennials is the “biggest black hole in our society.” In addition, they have sponsored shooting and hunting events.
For this past Father’s Day, Ignite held a raffle where each person could enter a name and they were given an additional ticket if anyone brought their father to church with them. The prize was two so-called “Black Rain AR-15 assault rifles.” Dan McCain, who won one of the two AR-15 rifles, explained his feelings on the matter:
“I was very happy to win the rifle. I’ve never won anything in my life, so it was exciting. I enjoy hunting and target shooting. I haven’t had the opportunity to hunt in a while, but hope to change that this season. Firearm ownership does not equate to violence.”

John Pliler (left) and Dan McCain were the winners of an AR-15 giveaway recently at Ignite Church.