Archive for the ‘Firearms Crime Intervention’ Category

February 20th, 2009

Liberal Media KSL 5 Reports, So does StandardNet…

Once again, liberal media portrays guns as an unsafe and irresponsible dangerous weapon that only the “professionals” should handle. In the latest installment, KSL 5 in Utah reports that the Brady Campaign against the Bill of Rights to Prevent Violence has graded Utah on the safety of their gun laws. The score: 4 out of 100 possible points.

Dee Rowland of the “center for abolishing rights of responsible citizens, but not criminals” Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center agrees with the Brady Campaign and it’s claim that Utah’s laws help feed the illegal gun market.’

There’s really no such thing as Utah’s illegal gun market, at least not what they’re referring to. They are simply using propagandist and inflammatory catch phrases here.

‘”Such as the gun show loophole (doesn’t exist), where you can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon without a background check,” she said.’

This is not true. Any gun sale completed involving an FFL gun dealer in any gun show in Utah requires a background check. Private sales, however, don’t require such a check. So, by their definition of the “gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist) we also have the Catholic Church Loophole, the Police Station Loophole, the Elementary School Loophole, the College Campus Loophole, the Private Residence Loophole, the Chucky Cheese Loophole, the trashtalking-liberal media-Civil Rights hating-morally inept KSL Classifieds Loophole, and even the Golden Grandma Luncheon at the Senior Citizen Home Loophole. This, my friends, is much MUCH more dire than previously thought. This must certainly mean that virtually every gun in Utah is illegal, and it’s all due to these dangerous loopholes. meh.

‘The report card also criticizes Utah’s lack of limiting bulk gun sales’

You can buy a 6, 12, or even 24 pack of beer at any major convenience store. Drunk driving deaths are twice what gun deaths are annually, why not limit “bulk beer sales” first if saving lives is really the concern of these morons?

Paul Helmke, spokesman for the Brady Campaign says lawmakers “have done nothing to improve the state’s reputation when it comes to common sense gun laws.”

Good. Keep it that way. “Common sense gun laws” is an oxymoron. This is akin to saying “Friendly Murderers”, or “Responsible Rapists”. Gun laws don’t stop criminals, they simply aid and abet them.

StandardNet Puts It Into Perspective For Us

The highest score, 79, went to California. Utah, with a score of 4, was tied for next-to-last place. We’re presumably meant to infer that California, with its extensive and complex web of state and local gun restrictions, is a much safer place to live than Utah, where, for example, virtually any law-abiding adult can get a permit to carry a loaded handgun. However, the Brady report says nothing about actual crime rates. According to the 2007 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, California’s violent-crime rate (522 violent crimes per 100,000 population) was more than twice as high as Utah’s (235 per 100,000), and the murder rate in California (6.2 per 100,000) was nearly triple that of the Beehive state (2.2 per 100,000).

Furthermore, preliminary figures for 2008 put Utah’s murder rate at about 1.5 per 100,000, which is lower than Canada’s. Ergo, Utahns needn’t necessarily feel distressed about their state’s low Brady score. For that matter, perhaps they should even be proud of it.

N. W. Clayton
Director of Communications
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)
Sandy

February 20th, 2009

Yakima homicide justified

Originally reported on January 22, 2009 over at Tri-CityHerald.com

YAKIMA — A robbery suspect was shot dead by an armed civilian late Monday, the first incident of justifiable homicide city police said they could recall in recent memory.

Franklin McWain, 33, died at a hospital from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. An autopsy was performed Tuesday.

A police news release said the shooting occurred in the 800 block of North Second Street about 11 p.m. Monday.

According to the release, a 27-year-old Yakima man told officers he was waiting outside a residence for a friend when he was approached by McWain.

The man, identified as Michael Valadez, 27, said McWain struck him on the head with a stick and demanded money. Valadez told police he was struck several more times before firing two shots at McWain. Valadez had a valid concealed weapons permit.

Valadez ran from the area and flagged down a passing police officer. He was taken to a hospital for treatment of a head wound and a broken left arm.

The release said police found evidence at the scene that backed up the man’s story.

He has not been charged with a crime. The case is being referred to the Yakima County prosecutor.

McWain was a longtime Yakima resident whose criminal history included six felonies, police said.

Court records show he was found guilty of charges related to eluding, theft and drugs, among other offenses.

June 26th, 2008

2nd Amendment Solution – Gun Free Zones (VIDEO)

This one’s for you, Mayor Adrian Fenty. I hope your “gun free zone” begins it’s quick rot today, at 10am EST.

P.S. Though this video is meant to be satire, the message is so close to home it’s scary. How can the left not see that this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what gun laws produce?

In case you haven’t noticed, criminals, who don’t have a problem breaking laws – stay with me here – DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM BREAKING LAWS. That’s right. Just because a sign is posted or a law effected that states that crime is not allowed, thugs with evil intent in their heart will only and always do as their heart desires – evil. The only real balance that exists is equalizing the playing field. In the case of gun violence, this means more guns for the law abiding citizenry, not less. But fedora toting Fenty and his ilk just don’t get this simple logic. They prefer to live in candyland while innocent citizens die due to these lawmakers’ ignorance and stupidity.

June 23rd, 2008

Hopeful for Heller

In a matter of hours we could have a ruling on Heller – arguably the biggest case currently in front of the Supreme Court. This ruling really has the potential to carve out the path of gun ownership and rights for the next century or two, maybe longer.

“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.”

While many are conjecturing on what they hope the Supreme Court rules, others still claim they know what the Supreme Court SHOULD rule, based on evidence of past documents, indicative of the founders’ intent. Some have indicated that the right to bear arms should be coupled with registration requirements, and others still claim that additional laws, waiting periods, and other such superfluous measures must be taken to make gun ownership ‘safe’ or ‘reasonable’.

While on the surface, these arguments seem logical, it is a bottomless pit. The temporary hope of security is squashed by the long term effects of restricting policies. Gun Laws–over 20,000 strong and counting to date–have proven largely ineffective. Registration has proven the first steps to confiscation. Note that the references to England and Australia are not those of handgun or machine-gun-only bans. These are outright bans on all firearms, excepting a select few, which grossly infringe on the right of the people to use firearms for things such as hunting, recreational shooting, Olympic target shooting training, self defense (a God Given right and responsibility), and even law enforcement (the “bobby’s don’t even carry a modern weapon, unless you consider a stick “modern”).

In all of the cases of gun bans, U.K., Australia, and even D.C., one trend has been undeniable. Gun crimes go up. Way up. Guns become a commodity on the black-or underground-market, and hoodlums have access not just 9-5, but 24/7.

If we knock on reason’s door, we get a response. Bans create commerce. That’s right, drug bans, prohibition, gun bans, and even sex trade bans. Often, these bans have just the opposite effect than was intended. In the U.K., there is a tremendous underground effort, widely successful, to import arms from surrounding countries. In fact, reporters have been astonished when they’ve discovered how simple and inexpensive it was to get a fully functional firearm which could be used in any number of criminal ways.

These firearms, while available to all who really look, are only used by the criminals. Why? They’re illegal, and in case you haven’t taken notice, it’s the people who commit crimes regularly – stick with me here – who COMMIT CRIMES REGULARLY. They want to cheat, steal, and kill. This is in their hearts. They don’t care if some lawmaker has said it’s no good to buy guns. They do what they want, because they are lawless, brutish thugs who want nothing more than to live by their own laws, created in their minds and executed by their own skewed inner judge.

This is what has been revealed as the fallacy of gun control. Pull back the curtain, and you see that gun control doesn’t work, it will never work. As long as man has the means to create guns, guns will be used by the worst of humanity.

So, how then do we protect the rest of civilization from these loose cannons we call criminals? We know laws do nothing but disarm the lawful, while empowering the lawless. For those still not with me here, I’ll spell it out: ARM THE POPULACE. That’s right, put a gun in the hands of as many responsible people as you can, as quickly as you can, and you have the makings of a polite society. There, I said it. When a thug knows that opposition, even deadly force, could be right in front of him (instead of 3-30 minutes away) then he takes a whole new look at his decisions. You see, God has given us all a little gift called the will to survive. We cower at the thought of our own mortality; and even cold, seemingly heartless thugs share at least this much in common with society’s betters.

Now for the frosting: This debate is moot. The second amendment is really a matter of the rights of the people. The arguments are currently for or against the individual right vs. the right of an organized militia (U.S. Army). However, this also is a moot point. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? The Bill of Rights, the document authored by the Greats of this nation’s founding, was written for you and me, the people. This was not a hall pass, conditionally or temporarily granting us rights to pass to and fro. The Bill of Rights is a message to all governments, now and in the future, telling in no uncertain terms what the rights of the people are. These rights, granted by God, are for all men. The infringement of these rights will warrant a reaction that the 2nd Amendment testifies to: self defense against all tyranny.

Maybe some are confused by the bill’s language, esp. the presence of a reference to the ‘State’. Is this the “State of California”, or the “State of being free”? In just asking the question, I think it clearly proves rhetorical. The State, whether a land mass or a State of being, both refer to one in the same. States were created to preserve freedom, a state which the settlers fought and died for.

This is another crucial piece of the puzzle. John Adams, George Washington, and Mr. Franklin didn’t just risk everything so they could have tea with George the third. They risked life, limb, and country so they could enjoy the freedoms they knew were inherently theirs, and they did it against a tyrannical government. Their sentiment at the time was for one overarching objective: guard against future tyranny as the one just defeated. Power belongs with the people, and the people grant the power.

“This is a free country”. Children run in the streets screaming this to their foes, knowing the truth stands on their side. I love my country, and am honored to live in a land which provides me and my family such a bright future. Some despise our freedoms, some want to destroy them, and some simply don’t understand them. That’s fine. You’re free to come if you want to be one of us, or leave if you don’t.

That’s what’s so great about our country: our freedom to choose our own course. But one thing I will not tolerate is the efforts of the select minority to strip these freedoms away from me and my fellow Americans. This is my land. If you don’t care for such freedoms, or cannot manage these freedoms for yourself, then please choose another land with another government. We are here to stay. Say what you will, but in our hearts, we remain unsympathetic to the whining of parliaments, politicians, and presidents who would infringe on our God Given Freedoms.

And should the time come, we will fight for these rights, every one of us, just as our Forefathers did before us: with our lives.

June 20th, 2008

Concealed permit holder stops bank robbery (VIDEO Link)


CANTON TOWNSHIP, MICH — A bank robbery attempt was foiled when Nabil Fawzi, an upstanding citizen took action and used his concealed handgun to stop the would be robber.

54-year-old Joseph Webster from Washtenaw County had entered the bank and quietly approached the teller window. He said nothing, but handed the teller a note telling her that he had a bomb strapped to himself. The teller hit the silent alarm and began stuffing a sack with $1 bills when Webster insisted she give him “bands of 50s and 100s.”

Little did Webster know that Fawzi, who had previously served in the Lebanese army for six years, was prepared for just such an occasion. After determining that the situation was safe, Fawzi pulled his concealed firearm–which he had a permit to carry–and cooly told the thief “You’re not going to rob this bank.” When Webster replied that he had a bomb, Fawzi merely responded, “I don’t care. You are not robbing this bank today!”

Fawzi searched the suspect for a weapon, then led him to a seat nearby, and waited for the police to arrive.

Fawzi has been hailed as a hero by locals in the town.

VIDEO LINK:
http://www.wxyz.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=12688@wxyz.dayport.com

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=deb8d417-008a-4e73-8386-1237c14d1376

© 2008 RIKBA.com - All Rights Reserved.