Snowflakes in Hell

Joe takes some local reporters to the range. I’m curious to see what they write. It’s good that they sought out someone with first hand experience and knowledge, rather than talk to the first “expert” willing to offer a quote. I notice Omie is left handed, and rather cute. Of course, any chick behind an AR-15 automatically gets a +5 in the looks department!

That looks like the same fiberglass Israeli mag that was my favorite for a while.

We screwed up. It seems that not only is Pat Brown not anti-gun, but she’s actually pretty pro-gun. In the interest of not eating our own, I’m hoping everyone gets the word out that we misunderstood what she was saying.

It’s difficult, when you don’t know someone from jack, and hear a statement on the air that can be taken a certain way, to decide how to take it. Given CNN’s reputation on our issue, it’s easy to misunderstand something, or take it the wrong way, as I did with this statement. The great thing about the blogosphere, is it offers a forum where people can defend themselves when they feel they are being unfairly maligned, as Ms. Brown has chosen to do in this case. Unlike a newspaper, we don’t put the correction on page E9.

So I admit that I was in error as to her orientation towards our issue. I’m hoping everyone that linked to the CNN video will update the post with a link to her comment.

SayUncle used to be in a band. Well, if he ever decided to get back into it, this would be the perfect guitar:

Don’t know if they make a bass version of that. But you gotta like it.

From the comments:

Wasn’t it just a few months ago when I got wailed on by the left during the Virginia Tech massacre for suggesting kids should carry guns to school to protect themselves? Sometime during the many interviews I did that week I said something to the effect that if we allowed concealed carry on campuses maybe someone would have taken Cho out. I am a big fan of concealed carry because I know criminals carry concealed weapons all the time and I would like to even the field with some honest citizens carrying a few themselves so criminals don’t think no one will shoot back. I think of how many lives would be saved if only someone in the school or company could defend against mass murderers instead of allowing these killers from mowing down a bunch of sitting ducks who are desperately try to hide behind furniture to save their lives.

Now, after doing interviews on the Jesse Davis murder, those from the right are taking one statement out of context and going nuts about it. It seems they think that I believe any man who owns a gun is a danger to women. If I thought that, I guess I would be talking about my own father and my own son. They have guns for personal protection. For that matter, my daughter has guns for personal protection and I also own firearms for personal protection. I am all for gun ownership for personal protection. Clearly, I was not saying a man with a gun is a psychopath.

Nor was I saying a man who might have a collection of guns is a psychopath. I know many of these men as well. They are hunters or lovers of antiques or do a lot of target shooting. What I was talking about during the Paula Zahn Show was the combination of psychopathic behavior and an obsession with weaponry as psychopath love weapons as it gives them a feeling of power and control. Psychopaths do indeed have a fascination with guns and knives and just because the rest of us might happen to own weapons or even have a number of them as a hobby doesn’t eliminate the fact that psychopaths may also be shopping at the gun store with us.

Women must learn to differentiate between psychological healthy men and unpsychologically healthy men if they want to keep from getting into a dangerous life threatening situation. No one trait will be proof that an individual is a psychopath but add a bunch of traits together and this is a warning. A kind, honorable, honest man with a gun collection is not a psychopath or a danger to anyone but a lying, manipulative, arrogant creep who has a cache of twenty weapons is someone a woman wants to get the hell away from. A man who teaches history at the local junior high school and happens to have a collection of Asian swords is not someone a woman should be frightened of but a man who obsessively watches ninja flicks, brags about how he used to be in the CIA, can’t keep a job, calls women sluts and whores, and owns a huge collection of swords and daggers, now there is a guy a woman wants should avoid like the plague.

Anyone who watched the actual Paula Zahn Show and paid attention to the whole conversation and intent would clearly know I was not labeling gun owners psychopaths. Unfortunately, when words are taken out of context and printed on the Internet, often the meaning of those words get misunderstood. I apologize to any gun owners (who aren’t psychopaths) who thought they were the target of my statements. I respect your constitutional rights to own firearms and would never want to see those taken away. I, like you, want to be sure I can protect myself and my family. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

I’m glad she responded.   For the record, I don’t think I took her statement out of context.   The context was pretty much in tact in the video.  I think she misspoke.  In other words, said something that sounded different than what she really meant.   That’s fine.   I can’t imagine I wouldn’t say something the wrong way on camera if I was in the media spotlight a lot.   Now that she’s clarified, I don’t think her sentiment is unreasonable or that she meant to malign gun owners.

It’s getting tiring posting about this, but it’s important, so I’ll keep doing it.  Via SayUncle, I found a pretty good article opposing HR2640:

No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear — they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people’s names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

Well, you see, the problem is these 21 million or so people are likely already prohibited persons, and thus aren’t able to legally own firearms even currently.   I agree that there are likely to be mistakes, but we have that now with the system the way it is, and there’s little recourse for getting your name out.  There’s also a lot of veterans who get screwed in 2000 who will get unscrewed by HR2640.

It’s also important to note that the reason the bill is moving so fast is so that amendments can’t be tacked on during debate.  We want this to move fast.

It seems to me that this article, though well written and well argued, is really arguing against the Brady Act altogether.  I think that’s a reasonable argument to make, because background checks can be infringing if the records are not accurate.  I wish we could have gotten more out of Congress in this regard.   But we did get something, and something is pretty good for a law that doesn’t really add any new legal restrictions on who may or may not own guns.

Over at Jeff’s, the Black Caucus in the General Assembly is holding up the budget over gun control.

Philadelphia is now the sixth largest city.   Congratulations Phoenix!  I heard on the radio this morning it was because Phoenix cheated, by annexing land.  I also think it might have something to do with the city not being a sewer, but I could be wrong.

You all remember the case up in New Hampshire of the Marine who shot dead a perpetrator that had previously shot a police officer and run him over. My friend Jason dug up the video (he also dug up that Pat Brown video from the other day, but I forgot to credit him). The video serves as a reminder to us that pepper spray is not always effective. This perp takes a blast in a confined space of a car and still manages to come out shooting, hitting the officer 4 times in the torso, and then run him over:

For those that can’t see the YouTube, here is a link to QuickTime video. Officer McCay was foolish to turn his back on the perpetrator. At best, pepper spray is useful for getting out of fist fight situations, but I wouldn’t rely on it to overcome deadly force. It has a place, but I’ve always thought of it as a double edged sword, both tactically and legally. Aside from the tactical issue of blowback at you, and different people’s ability to fight through it, I’d hate to be in a situation where a prosecutor asks “You had pepper spray. Why didn’t you just use that?”