Home

When We Talk About Gun Violence, Aren’t We Talking About Crimes?

August 13, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 3 Comments

For all the talk about a new gun law which is sweeping across both sides of the Congressional aisle following the mass shootings of last week, there seems to be one response to the problem of gun violence which somehow never gets said. And this response would take into account the fact that more than 75% of all gun injuries happen to be crimes. That’s right – crimes. 

Here are the numbers from 2017, rounded off a bit: Unintentional injuries – 15,000; suicides – 21,000; homicides and aggravated assaults – 90,000. Oops, that’s only 72% but it’s close enough. 

I know all the reasons why so many guns wind up in the ‘wrong hands.’ I also know all the reasons why so many shootings occur in inner-city, what we politely refer to as ‘disadvantaged’ zones. The latter topic may not be as popular for trade books as why America is quickly becoming a Fascist state, but a new book on this subject has a way of appearing every year.

Our most eminent gun researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, have begun developing a different approach to this whole problem which my friends in Gun-control Nation should spend some time thinking about instead of always promoting the ‘public health approach.’ According to Cook and Ludwig, the average arrest rate for aggravated assaults in major cities is somewhere around five percent.  In other words, if I’m walking down Blackstone Avenue in Chicago and I decide to yank out my Glock and shoot someone else in the head, even if I miss and only hit him in the shoulder, the odds that I’ll get away with the assault are better than nine out of ten.   

The good news for my intended victim is that like most people walking around with a legal or illegal gun, I don’t practice enough to hit what I’m trying to hit. So even using a very lethal round like a 9mm or an S&W 40, chances are my intended target will survive. The better news for me is that when the cops show up and ask the three or four people who witnessed the assault to give them a description of what I look like, what they’ll be able to broadcast over the radio is that they are looking for someone who ‘I didn’t see nuttin’ at all,’ is the way I’ll probably be described.

Know why so many street-corner shootings appear to be just random, drive-by events? Because the nabe knows that if they go to the cops to complain that someone dissed them or someone assaulted them or someone’s just being a pain, the chances are better than even that the cops won’t do anything at all. Yea, yea, I know all about community policing – tell that one to communities of color in Baltimore or Washington, D.C., where the gun-violence rates in both cities have lately increased by more than 30 percent!

Let me make it clear. Believe it or not, I’m very pro-cop.  I earn my living doing lethal-force certifications for local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, and I appreciate the fact that when police show up at a home that is burning down they will rush right in to make sure that all the occupants are safely outside, including the family cat. So the purpose of this column is not (read: not) to dump on the cops.

On the other hand, I don’t understand why anyone who shoots someone else isn’t charged with attempted murder, since the only reason it was attempted and not completed was because the shooter didn’t shoot straight. Unfortunately, according to Cook and Ludwig, that even when someone actually aims accurately enough to leave a dead body in the street, the arrest rate for capital gun crimes is less than 20 percent.

My friends who promote the idea of a ‘public health approach’ to gun violence might take some time to consider the implications of the Cook-Ludwig research. Somehow I just don’t buy the argument that crimes as serious as gun assaults should go unpunished because we don’t want to be ‘judgemental’ about life on inner-city streets.

Move Over Obama. There’s A New Gun-Grabber In The White House.

August 12, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 2 Comments

              Back in April, 2016 when Trump the Shlump showed up at the NRA show to be anointed as the spear-carrier for America’s gun-nut contingent, I thought (and said) that the boys at the Fairfax home office were making a big mistake.  America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ always endorsed the GOP Presidential candidate, but they waited until October to get the word out. By tying the organization to a guy who had never previously run for any political office of any kind, particularly this guy, Wayne-o and his buddies made a deal which bound them to someone over whom they would have no control.

              Whatever else you want to say about him, Trump’s a through-and-through New York guy. Which means that he’s about as connected to guns and gun culture as the man in the moon. For all his bluster and bull  about 2nd-Amendment ‘rights, he’ll say anything to consolidate his alt-right base. And if it ever suited his political fancy to throw the NRA leadership under a bus, get out the broom and start sweeping the street because that’s exactly what happened last week.

              Of course the minute bullets started flying around the Wal Mart in El Paso and then inside a Dayton bar, Trump yanked out the old ‘thoughts and prayers’ even though he thought the Dayton bar was actually located in Toledo. Not that his putative challenger, Joe Biden, did any better, because he got up and told everyone at a San Diego fundraiser how sorry he was about two mass shootings that occurred in Houston and Michigan. 

              Meanwhile, by the middle of last week it began to appear that we may have hit some kind of critical turning-point in the argument about guns. One of the Fox News anchors, Shepard Smith, delivered an impassioned commentary which could have been written for him by Everytown, and by week’s end Trump was openly promoting the idea of ‘intelligent’ background checks. He also made a point of saying that he had talked to both Pelosi and Schumer about going forward with a background-check bill, those two names being at the top of the most-hated list for Gun-nut Nation, no questions asked.

              Trump may be President but he’s also a 2020 Presidential candidate, and in that respect his support of a background-check bill makes him probably the 20th candidate to come up with some kind of gun-control scheme.  There’s Booker with his national ID card, Biden wants a national gun buy-back, Buttigieg wants an AR ban, Kamala wants dealers to be regulated more strictly, blah, blah, blah and blah. But the biggest and best plan was just unveiled by Pocahontas, except it’s not really a plan. It’s a pledge to reduce gun violence by 80 percent, although she admits she doesn’t have the faintest idea of how to make this actually work.

              All of this Democratic yapping clearly reflects the degree to which an energized and organized Gun-control Nation may have been an important factor in turning a number of red Congressional districts blue in 2018. And if anything, the public response to California, Texas and Ohio may well presage an even stronger Democratic result built around gun violence next year.

              Except there’s one little problem, a problem named Donald Trump. Because when all is said and done, his quick pivot on gun control and the reaction of Gun-nut Nation to his new-found gun concerns reminds me of what happened when Nixon went to China in 1972. If you were a Congressional Democrat after 1949 and so much as quietly hinted that we couldn’t ignore one-quarter of the world’s population, it was Nixon who stood up and called you a ‘pinko stooge’ or worse. If gun control becomes a political lightning-rod for next year, Trump’s fervent support of gun-nuttery gives him all the protection he needs.

What’s the NRA going to do if Trump signs a background-check bill? Tell their membership to vote for some Socialist who will take away all their guns?

When It Comes To A New Gun Law, Here’s How To Get It Done.

August 8, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 6 Comments

Now that the momentum appears to be building for a new federal gun law, my Gun-control Nation friends will no doubt get busy trying to figure out: a) what would be the best law to try and get passed; and b) how to go about getting it passed. The GOP has suddenly begun warming up to the idea of a ‘red flag’ law because such a measure would basically hand the gun-control problem over to the cops, which means that the NRA-toadies on the right side of the aisle can say support ‘common-sense’ gun laws and Blue Lives Matter at the same time.

Last year the Parkland kids spearheaded an event, March For Our Lives, which brought as many as 2 million people to DC and may have been one of the largest, mass protests of all time.  Which was exactly the problem with the event, namely, that it was a protest against gun violence rather than a guide to what needed to get done.

Want to know how to figure out what could or might get done? My advice is to heed the experiences and words of a woman who, when a definitive history of gun control finally appears, deserves to be considered as the Susan B. Anthony of the gun-control movement (we’ll make Shannon Watts the Elizabeth Cady Stanton), a.k.a., Donna Dees Thomases, who put together the first, national gun-control event in 2000 known as the Million Mom March.

Donna got going after she saw a news report about a shooting in a Jewish Community Center in California which wounded two adults and three children, although luckily nobody was killed. I want to pause my narrative for a moment and give a big shout-out to two women, Donna Finkelstein and Loren Lieb, whose children were wounded in the attack and who remain active in the local Brady chapter to this day. I just sent a contribution to Brady in their names and I urge you to do the same. Now back to Donna.

Last year following March for our Lives, Donna published a piece in which she uses her own activist experiences of the past two decades to state both some concerns and hopes for what Gun-control Nation might possibly achieve. Her biggest concern, and I share this with her in spades, is that the gun-control movement continues to be splintered into a multiplicity of groups which makes the whole issue of branding difficult to achieve. And in the age of instant media known as the internet, branding is not only essential, but it’s particularly important when you go up against Gun-nut Nation that gathers just about everyone under one brand – the NRA – which has been around for more than 140 years.

Now the fact that the NRA is at the moment having problems keeping its brand from coming apart at the seams shouldn’t lull any gun-control activist into some kind of dream-like fantasy that America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ is about to dry up and go away. The boys in Fairfax will wait until things quiet down, they’ll give Wayne-o and his team a graceful good-bye, and back they’ll come to continue the rhetorical shoot-out over gun ‘rights.’

Donna’s concern about the plethora of organizational efforts on the gun-control side is balanced by the fact that between herself, Shannon, Sarah Brady and others, women have played a leading role in the gun-control fight. And she makes a point of the fact that one of the strengths of Moms Demand Action is the red t-shirt which is easily identifiable at public events. Just imagine what it would look like if a million people showed up for another gun-control rally on the Mall and everyone was wearing the same shirt (hint, hint.)

Last but not least, and here I couldn’t agree more with what Donna says, which is that nothing happens overnight. Advocacy is always a long, difficult and often frustrating struggle so be forewarned and prepared. On the other hand, who ever said that important issues like human life don’t deserve a serious fight?

And you can also read an interview I gave yesterday about the attempt to put an assault-weapon ban on the 2020 Florida ballot – another tough, long fight.

Do Guns Protect Us From Crime?

August 7, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , 8 Comments

              Now that the reaction to last week’s mass shootings has become yet another Twitter battle between Trump and the Democrats, the real issue behind the gun-control debate has receded into the background but I’ll try to put it front and center again. The real issue is not whether Americans should be able to own guns. The real issue is what kinds of guns should they be able to own.

              We suffer more than 125,000 fatal and non-fatal gun injuries each year because we are the only country with a gun-regulatory system which allows people to own weapons which were designed to do one thing and one thing only – kill human beings. You don’t shoot a bird out of a tree with a Glock. You don’t shoot Bambi with an AR.  But the guy who comes into my gun shop and buys some rusted, old shotgun to shoot a squirrel that’s eating his tomato plants jumps through the same legal hoops as the guy who walks in and buys a Glock 19 and a couple of high-capacity mags. And if he also buys an AR with some 30-round mags, we still do only one, 30-second background check.

              The reason that this absurd regulatory system continues to be seen as the cornerstone upon which we can somehow create policies that will reduce gun violence is because a majority of Americans are convinced that they need to own one of these man-killing guns in order to protect themselves from something, whatever that something happens to be. Is your home safer with or without a gun? The public opinion surveys indicate that the most frequent answer to that question will be ‘yes.’ 

              Another indication of the consensus about the value of gun ownership has been the growth of concealed-carry licenses, as well as the number of states which let people walk around with a gun without having to undergo any licensing procedure at all. There are now 15 states where anyone who can pass the FBI-NICS background check can walk around with a concealed gun. As for concealed-carry licenses, or what is usually referred to as CCW (concealed-carry weapon), the number is now somewhere above 17 million, and if we assume that there are (for the sake of argument) that there are at least 20 million gun owners in the ‘Constitutional-carry’ states, this means that probably somewhere around 40 million Americans can wander the highways and byways toting a gun.

              Our friend John Lott has calculated the per-capita number of CCW licenses and you can see a list of the 13 states where at least one out of every 10 adult residents has a license to carry a gun. I have compared the per-capita number of CCW-holders in those 13 states with the gun-homicide rate in those same 13 states and the results are here:

              Note that of the 13 states with the highest per-capita rate of  CCW, seven of them also have a gun-violence rate which is higher than the national gun-violence rate of 4.46. With the exception of Washington and Iowa, the states with lower gun-violence than the national average are all Western states whose CCW numbers obviously reflect a long history and tradition of personal gun ownership. On the other hand, the high rates of gun violence in states like Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc., all reflect the overwhelming incidence of gun violence in inner-city zones within those states.

              To me, these numbers may indicate that Americans who consider owning a gun for personal protection may not just be buying into some clever marketing scheme (read: scam) of the gun industry. Many live in states where gun violence is more of a daily event than what is covered in the national media, and the opinions of these folks might be more sensitive to local news reports that hit closer to home.

              Thinking about guns as a response to fear may strike some as odd but we need to understand those fears if we are really committed to talking about gun violence with people who own guns.

Who Says Guns Can’t Protect Us From Mass Shooters?

August 6, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 3 Comments

              There’s a story going around the alt-white/right network that el Shlump-o is going to propose a national registry of all AR owners that will be managed by the FBI. I’m hardly surprised that Newsmax and other venues which push their content to the paranoids amongst us would trot that one out, but it may also be the work of some clever guy who does marketing for the gun industry since the events of the past weekend will surely result in a spike of assault rifle sales.

              It’s no secret that whenever the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a Democrat, gun sales go up, just as when the tenant is a Republican, gun sales go down. And the reason is very simple, namely, that both political parties depend on support from groups and individuals who either do, or do not like guns. In this respect, I have to say that the pro-gun gang is more honest in their intentions and beliefs, because they make no secret about the fact that they really do want to hold onto their toys. On the other hand, I cringe every time that some gun-control proponent starts off by saying that he or she ‘supports’ the 2nd Amendment because that just happens to be a load of crap.

              Yesterday the Very Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, Dean of Washington’s National Cathedral, issued a statement in which he asked, “How long will we tolerate this epidemic of gun violence?” He then went on to note that he grew up hunting birds and target shooting with family and friends, so he was addressing his letter to all his fellow gun owners, since he claims a kinship with them.

              The National Cathedral has an active gun-control group. I am privileged to work with this group and have appeared at one of the public conferences on gun violence which they hold from time to time. Let me break it to the Very Rev. Hollerith as gently as I can: The Cathedral has never asked a bone-fide gun nut to show up and explain why he loves his guns and why he is opposed to every ‘reasonable’ gun-control measure that the Cathedral leadership supports.

              Yesterday our friend John Lott was informed that his Twitter account had been closed down because it was decided that an op-ed he wrote for The New York Daily News somehow violated the guidelines of what Twitter believes is proper content for their site. Lott’s op-ed was a comment about a manifesto published by a mass shooter in New Zealand which somehow tied his anti-Muslim feelings to support for environmentalism – go figure that one out.

              Let me say the following as directly and bluntly as I can, okay?  I am opposed to censorship of any kind. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who censors the writings, statements or public appearances of anyone else forfeits their right to exist (rhetorically speaking) in the public space. Frankly, my liberal friends who decry gun violence on the one hand but applaud attempts to muzzle someone like John Lott on the other should be ashamed of themselves, no matter what.

              Whether we like it or not, people who really believe that the Democrats, the liberals and the gun-grabbers of all stripes just can’t wait to take away their guns aren’t just a bunch of paranoid nuts. They are reacting to real fears, even if those fears are then exploited by the paranoia hucksters on the alt/white-right. If nothing else, these mass shootings will make the gun argument more toxic on both sides.

              A week after the 2008 election, I walked into a gun shop in Houston and the place was mobbed. I asked someone why there were so many people trying to buy guns and he replied in a completely serious tone, “Haven’t you heard? Armageddon’s coming, we have to be prepared.”

              The guy in the Houston gun shop wasn’t buying a gun to go out and shoot up the town. To the contrary, he really believed that he needed a gun to protect himself from some nut. Was he so wrong?

Mass Shootings Are Now The Norm.

August 5, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , Leave a comment

              I bought my first assault rifle in 1978 – a Colt Sporter AR-15 with a ten-round clip. Since I lived near the big army base in South Carolina, Fort Jackson, I was able to get my hands on plenty of.223 ammo. So from time to time I would take a sack of ammunition and go down to a sand pit with the gun to have some fun.

              I also owned two lever-action rifles, a Winchester 30-30 and a Marlin in 44 mag.  These were the guns which knocked down deer aplenty, the 30-30 probably bring the most versatile hunting caliber ever devised.

              Anyone who tries to pass off an assault rifle as a hunting gun has drunk too much kool-aid to have a serious discussion about guns or anything else. On the other hand, the AR-15 is lots of fun to shoot. And the reason it’s so much fun is precisely the reason it has now been used in three mass shooting rampages in just over a week.

              The AR loads its ammo magazine from beneath the gun, which means that no matter how big a magazine or how many rounds it holds, it won’t get in the way of the shooter looking through the sights and aiming the gun. Most AR rifles come with a 20-round magazine, 30 round mags are commonly found, and if you tape two 30-round mags together, you can get off 60 rounds with an AR in a minute or less. The kid who shot up the Sandy Hook Elementary School popped off more than 90 rounds in five minutes, most of that time spent moving from room to room.

              Shooting an AR with a hi-cap magazine is like playing with a shooting video game. Except all of a sudden it’s not a game if the targets are real people rather than some cartoon figure on a screen.

              Of course the minute Trump got done demonstrating once again his leadership by schlepping out the old ‘thoughts and prayers,’ he then went back to the other standard narrative about how mass shootings are the work of the mentally ill.  I’m surprised that the mental health network hasn’t yet made their usual noise about how mentally ill people shouldn’t be castigated for violent behavior, but that messaging will no doubt come before the day is out.

              As for the physicians who deal with physical, as opposed to mental health issues, this morning’s CBS broadcast of their ‘Sunday Morning Show’ brought seven docs together to talk about their reactions to this weekend’s events, and they all agreed that physicians need to do a better job figuring out who is capable of committing this kind of carnage before the event occurs. The fact that the shooters in Texas, Ohio and California all purchased their guns from licensed dealers was somehow ignored.

              What all these mass shooters have in common is that most of them planned their events in a very deliberate and painstaking way. They built up their arsenals over time, they practiced at the range, they checked out various locations and escape routes. All of this behavior was and is very different from the impulsive and immediate way in which a street guy yanks out his Glock and goes – bang!.

              The point is, that if anything, people who want to commit mass carnage go out of their way to appear ‘normal’ to other folks precisely so that they can make their plans in an organized and efficient way. To deny that such people are not mentally ill is really silly unless you want to define mental illness as being totally and completely deranged.

              I would love physicians to develop some kind of evaluation profile that would allow them to identify people at risk for committing mass murder with guns. But in the absence of such research, I simply don’t understand why the medical community has so much difficulty responding to gun risk by saying clearly and loudly that the one way to end gun violence is to get rid of the guns.

              You really don’t need more CDC research funding to figure that one out. 

8 Ways The Electric Hunting Bike Is Changing The Way We Hunt.

August 2, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 2 Comments

Black electric bicycle with sunset on light green meadow in spring color evening

Electric bikes are becoming increasingly popular.

Indeed, 40 million e-bikes are expected to be sold around the world by 2023. Clearly, the demand for powered bikes is growing by the day.

One particular niche market that’s gained traction in recent years is the electric hunting bike.

Hunting has been around since the dawn of time. Each new age has heralded novel technology that has changed the way it’s done. E-bikes are the latest invention to be impacting the way people hunt.

Are you interested in learning exactly how it’s making a difference? We wanted to help.

Keep reading to discover 8 ways electric hunting bikes are changing the way we hunt.

1. Go Further, Quicker

The best hunting spots are usually far out of the way.

They’re a long distance off the beaten track, away from civilization and in amongst the bush.

Getting to these locations is rarely straight-forward! It can be a tough slog on two feet, hauling all your food and gear with you. Many hunters choose an ATV to navigate the terrain and get into position quicker.

Of course, that comes with its own set of challenges. For one thing, they’re noisy- an obvious disadvantage when you’re after stealth.

Taking an electric bike mitigates all of these problems. Hunters can travel significant distances with minimal effort and time elapsed in the process.

2. Easier Access to Harder to Reach Places

We just mentioned how hunting spots tend to be off the beaten track.

They can also require navigating challenging terrain.

Thick scrub, significant hills, and muddy paths make life hard for the average bipedal hunter. Sometimes you don’t have to walk a long way to have a tough slog on your hands.

Using an electric hunting bike helps make life a breeze. Get to the top of hills without a problem. Get off the track without issue. Get through muddy sections with ease.

Suddenly, the opportunity to novel exploration into harder areas becomes possible. Hunters can get in amongst the rough to scout out the territory.   

3. Spend More Time Hunting

What happens when you get into place quicker and more easily?

There’s more time to hunt.

Hunters have more time on their hands. it means less time and effort spent getting into position. Tasks like checking for scrapes and rubs can be performed in a fraction of the time.

Tracks that take 2 hours to take by foot can be covered in half the time (or less). That means far longer proportions of the day can be spent on the hunt itself.

Get your positioning wrong and need to move on? No problem. Hop back on the bike and find a new spot. Life is far easier with a set of thick, powered wheels to call upon.

4. Carry More Gear

Strength is often a limiting factor.

There’s a host of gear the average hunter can’t take, simply because they can’t physically carry everything. It might be possible on flat, solid land. But to take everything through forests and over hills, for days at a time, the task becomes untenable.

The same goes for food.

With just a backpack to haul everything in and out, there’s only so space for food.

Being able to carry more means a) life on the hunt is inextricably easier and b) you can go hunting for longer periods of time.

That’s what an electric bike offers a hunter. A 5-day hunt becomes a 10-day hunt because you can finally take everything you need.

5. Leave Less Scent

Moving by foot can be an effective means of getting into position.

Indeed, for thousands of years, it was the only way!

Hunters are more likely to leave their scent behind like this though. Making direct contact with the ground is a recipe for leaving traces of your presence. Remember, walking takes significant effort; sweat and body odor ensues.

It doesn’t take much for an animal to pick up on your presence. Get the positioning wrong and a hunter can give the game away. A whole day stalking can be for nothing.

Using an electric bike requires less effort on the hunter’s part; it leaves less scent behind as a result.

6. Make Less Noise

The best hunters make very little noise.

There’s no room for error. One snapped twig can spook an animal and send it running.

Electric bikes are naturally quiet. It’s pedal power, after all! They’re also lightweight and easy to manoeuver. All told, they can be exponentially quieter than a clumsy person hunting on foot.

Want to know how the work? Here’s a link where you can learn about these bikes.

7. More People Can Get Involved

Young and old alike can now enjoy hunting more easily as well.

Some people may have hunted their entire life. Upon getting to a certain age, their bodies may no longer be able to take the strain. Those pack marches and days on the trail become physically unrealistic.

As we’ve seen, an electric bike takes much of the strain. Those hard to reach places are easier to get to. People who thought their hunting days were behind them can get back out there!

Likewise, young people can keep up and come along for the ride too.

8. Easily Transport What You Catch

Lugging a 300lb buck home is no easy task.

On top of everything else a hunter is carrying, that extra weight can be a serious energy sapper.

Electric bikes make this less of a problem. The extra power would make it an easier task anyway. However, some clever people have designed trailers to attach to the bike too. Simply put your catch on the back, and ride off home.

Final Thoughts on the Electric Hunting Bike

There you have it: 8 ways the electric hunting bike is changing the way people hunt.

Hunting has been around since the dawn of time. E-bikes are a relatively new invention that is just taking off. Combining the two is starting to revolutionize the sport. It makes the life of the hunter exponentially easier in all manner of ways.

Hopefully, this post has highlighted exactly how.

Like this article? Read more hunting-related articles right here on our blog. Just search ‘hunting’ to get started.

Gun Violence And 2020: The Candidates Speak.

August 1, 2019

mikethegunguy Blogs , , 2 Comments

              Now that some of us (not me) have sat through two debates by the folks who want to take over the Oval office in 2021, we can see two basic groupings emerging on guns. I’m going to label these groupings as the T-group for ‘tough’ and the NST-group for ‘not so tough.’ But before we get into the details of which candidate wants what, I have to say that I agree with the NRA‘s statement this morning that “not a single one of the many gun control schemes proposed by the anti-gun Democratic candidates for president would make Americans any safer.”  Well, maybe we would be one percent safer. Anyway, here’s how it breaks down.

              Everyone in the T and NST groups backs an assault weapons ban and comprehensive background checks, the idea here being that even though the kid who turned the Gilroy garlic festival into a shooting range underwent a background check, he was still able to buy an AK-47. So if we have both comprehensive background checks and an assault weapons ban, that takes care of that. No more Gilroys, right? 

              It goes without saying that both groups also support ‘red flag’ laws and other measures to protect victims or possible victims of domestic gun abuse, although I still don’t really understand how asking a judge to issue an order taking away someone’s guns is really any different than walking into the local police station and telling the chief that so-and-so is acting crazy and happens to own guns. Oh well, I must be missing something in that regard.

              Where the two groups diverge is on the issue of licensing. The NST group appears to have no issue with gun licensing conducted at the state level as long as the process includes using the feds to conduct the background check. In this respect, the T‘s include the two old men, Biden and Bern, along with Pocahantas who hasn’t yet released an official policy paper on guns, but she’ll get around to it as soon as she finishes all her other policy papers. [Does Liz actually think that anyone gives a rat’s damn about policy papers?]

              The T group, on the other hand, led by Cory and seconded by Kammie, wants the entire licensing process taken over by the feds, who will issue gun licenses after the applicant takes a gun-safety course, undergoes the background check and blah, blah blah. Cory has yet to be asked to identify which federal agency would administer the safety course or, for that matter, would actually oversee the licensing process. Let’s not forget that the ATF regulates dealers, not gun owners, and oh, by the way, Kamala want anyone who sells more than 5 guns a year to become a licensed dealer. So the ATF can now figure out how to inspect millions of new dealers.  Right now they inspect less than 5 percent of all dealers.

              I hate to keep bringing this up again and again, but there’s a very simple way to get rid of gun violence. All you have to do is get rid of the guns which cause the violence, namely, the small, hi-powered, hi-capacity handguns. And despite everyone’s reverence for the 2nd Amendment, the government can decide that certain kinds of guns are too lethal for sale to the general public. Is there any difference between an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine and a Glock 19 with a 20-round magazine?  Yea, ten rounds. The AR takes a military round known as the .223. The round in a Glock 19, the 9×19, also happens to be a military load.

              If my friends in Gun-control Nation would get behind a realistic plan to end gun violence by getting rid of the cause of the violence, the NRA would bitch and moan but so what? Gun-nut Nation will bitch and moan no matter what the other side says. For all the wrong reasons, what the NRA said about last night’s debate happens to be correct.

Newer Entries