VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 1/6/13

1. Guns save lives: Robbery victims turn tables on attackers in two separate Cincinnati area incidents
2. Man attempts to open fire on crowd at movie theater, stopped by off-duty deputy!
3. Watch what happens when guns are banned [VIDEO]
4. Guns, mental illness and Newtown
5. Let teachers carry arms, ban gun-free zones to halt mass shootings
6. Bloomberg on unarmed Sandy Hook principal: "I don't know what a gun would have done"
7. Houston Democrat Precinct Chair: stop gun violence by shooting NRA members
8. Gov Cuomo: 'confiscation' option for upcoming New York gun laws
9. Gov. Rick Perry: let teachers carry weapons
10. The case for gun rights is stronger than you think
11. Why did gun control fail the families of Newtown
12. What to do about monsters?
13. We know how to stop school shootings
14. I am a physician and guns are a disease
15. Stop the proliferation of guns by ending the fear
16. Law enforcement deaths down 20 percent in 2012: study
17. My AR 15 is not an assault rifle
18. Getting started with reloading on a budget: the lady shows you how [VIDEO]
19. The gun glossary
20. Some German gun laws for comparison
21. Warning America: don't give up your guns! [VIDEO]
22. Antis were a "no show" at Saturday's debate with VCDL president
23. Volunteers needed for Norfolk gun show on January 26 and 27
24. 2013 Traveler's Guide Mail Order Sale and Deadline (LAST CALL for 2013!)

1. Guns save lives: Robbery victims turn tables on attackers in two separate Cincinnati area incidents

Neal Jefferis emailed me this:


Guns save lives: Robbery victims turn tables on attackers in two separate Cincinnati area incidents
by Chad D. Baus
December 11, 2012

Three more law-abiding Ohio citizens are alive today thanks to their decision to exercise their Second Amendment and Ohio Constitutional right to bear arms for their defense and security.

First, a concealed handgun license-holder in Lockand, OH (Hamilton Co.) was the victim of an attempted armed robbery at 3:00 p.m. Sunday afternoon.

From WXIX (Fox Cincinnati):

Police say, according to the attempted robbery victim, he was alone and was getting out of his car in an alley when three males came to him and told him to give them everything at gunpoint. The robbery victim, who was on his way into work, did comply with the demands and gave the robbers his wallet. The would be robbers did not know, however, that the man who they were trying to rob was also carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit.

All three attempted robbers were shot with a .40 caliber glock at the 109 North Wayne in Lockland. One of the juveniles was shot in the face, one in the right shoulder, and the adult was hit in the lower left leg. The suspects then fled the scene on foot in different directions, but were later caught a short distance away by Lockland police.

...The three people who were shot were transported to the hospital for non-life threatening injuries in ambulances. They are being held at the hospital. Police say they are looking into charging them with aggravated robbery and possibly felonious assault.

Police say that there are independent witnesses who are cooperating with them and have given statements.

According to to the article, police stated in a press conference on Sunday that "we believe that this is an instance of a subject who was almost about to be the victim of a robbery, he's a licensed CCW holder, and had a weapon himself."

Less than 12 hours later, two other crime victims fought back when an armed robber opened fire.

From The Cincinnati News:

Two workers at the Sunoco gas station off Hamilton Avenue in Springfield Township fired their guns after a gunman shot at them during a hold-up just before 12:30 a.m. today, police said.

The suspect, a man in his late teens or early 20s, died at the scene. His name has not been released.

"You have the right to protect yourself," said Scott Carpenter, 31 of Springfield Township, who gets his coffee at Sunoco every morning. "I know everybody who works in there. They are all great guys. Everybody knows they have guns. That's why I was surprised someone tried to rob them. It does not make sense. This is not the best neighborhood."

The Sunoco gas station is back open today. Police said the business has not been robbed before.

Earlier this morning, one of the store's owners declined comment but told a reporter everyone inside was OK.

Police said they are still reviewing store security surveillance video to see what went down after the gunman walked into the station, pointed a gun at the two workers and demanded cash.

"It was just your normal robbery, 'give me your money,'" said Sgt. Burt Roberts.

At least until the suspect wound up behind the counter in a confrontation with the men, who pulled out their own guns: a 40-caliber handgun and a shotgun.

They fired "multiple shots" at the suspect during the course of the robbery, Roberts said.

"We've been robbed!" one of the workers frantically yelled to a 911 dispatcher, according to a recording of the call. "I'm holding a gun to his head! We shot him. He pulled a gun on us and started shooting, so we shot him....He came at me with the gun. He said 'go behind the counter and get me the money.'"

The article says whether or not the store clerks have concealed handgun licenses has not yet been made public (it isn't necessary to have a CHL to carry concealed in one's own home or one's own place of business).

Unfortunately, this article contains a disappointing quote from Sgt. Roberts, who said "Typically we don't advise people do this but that's what they chose to do," Roberts said. "Usually we tell people money or candy bars or whatever you sell at your Sunoco aren't worth dying for. They chose to do otherwise."

Sadly, Sgt. Roberts seems not to understand that these workers were fighting for their very lives, not for candy bars. The only chance they might have died over "candy bars or whatever" is if they had followed his advice and come to work unarmed. [PVC: Sgt. Roberts could learn a lot from York County Sheriff Danny Diggs, who praised a CHP holder for stopping a robbery at a AutoZone in November.]

2. Man attempts to open fire on crowd at movie theater, stopped by off-duty deputy!

What would have happened had the anti-gun Aurora Colorado theater had an armed patron in the audience when Holmes opened fire? Well, here's a hint based on a similar incident. There was an off-duty Bexar County deputy (the same department where I was a reserve deputy in the 1970s) in the building and stopped the shooter before he could harm anyone in the theater.

Charles Losik emailed me this:



by Jason Howerton
December 17, 2012

Update: WOAI now reports it was an off-duty sergeant who fired a total of four shots, wounding the shooter. An Initial report by 1200 WOAI news said that an off-duty sheriff’s deputy shot the suspect one time.

The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.

That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.

Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.

With one shot, an off-duty sergeant took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.

When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s sergeant working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.

Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.

“The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu added.

Due to the off-duty sergeant’s bravery, the gunman was not able to make it into the theater where he could have potentially taken many lives.

The gunman and the man he shot were hospitalized, according to WOAI.

Police say a recent breakup set off the man’s shooting spree on Sunday, reports.

Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a China Garden restaurant next to the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him.

He lashed out by sending her a message saying he planned to go to the restaurant and “shoot somebody,” said Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Raymond Pollard.

Pollard said the woman called to warn restaurant employees, but by the time she saw his message, Garcia was already outside the China Garden firing a Glock 23 at the front door about 9:25 p.m.

If Garcia survives his attempt at mass murder, officials say he will likely face a charge of attempted capital murder as he allegedly shot at the San Antonia police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant and into the theater.

3. Watch what happens when guns are banned [VIDEO]

Oldie, but goodie - The Australian example: gun confiscation and the aftermath


Gun Control - Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned
by MrPshycoVids
October 19, 2012

The results of Australia's Gun Ban:

Armed Robberies UP 69%
Assaults With Guns UP 28%
Gun Murders UP 19%
Home Invasions UP 21%

4. Guns, mental illness and Newtown

Ted Knight emailed me this:


Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown
There were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 in the 2000s.
by David Kopel
December 17, 2012

Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of "active shooters"—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.

Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault.

The 1980s were much worse than today in terms of overall violent crime, including gun homicide, but they were much better than today in terms of mass random shootings. The difference wasn't that the 1980s had tougher controls on so-called "assault weapons." No assault weapons law existed in the U.S. until California passed a ban in 1989.

Connecticut followed in 1993. None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law. This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function.

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are "semi-automatic" because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber.

Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

Back in the mid-1960s, in most states, an adult could walk into a store and buy an AR-15 rifle, no questions asked. Today, firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States. If someone wants to purchase an AR-15 or any other firearm, the store must first get permission for the sale from the FBI or its state counterpart. Permission is denied if the buyer is in one of nine categories of "prohibited persons," including felons, domestic-violence misdemeanants, and persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or alcoholic.

Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when "active shooters" were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors.

Loren Coleman's 2004 book "The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines" shows that the copycat effect is as old as the media itself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's 1774 classic "The Sorrows of Young Werther" triggered a spate of copycat suicides all over Europe. But today the velocity and pervasiveness of the media make the problem much worse.

A second explanation is the deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill. A 2000 New York Times study of 100 rampage murderers found that 47 were mentally ill. In the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (2008), Jason C. Matejkowski and his co-authors reported that 16% of state prisoners who had perpetrated murders were mentally ill.

In the mid-1960s, many of the killings would have been prevented because the severely mentally ill would have been confined and cared for in a state institution. But today, while government at most every level has bloated over the past half-century, mental-health treatment has been decimated. According to a study released in July by the Treatment Advocacy Center, the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has plummeted to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people.

Moreover, a 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, "Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates," found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil-commitment laws.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend "gun-free zones," such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch's study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.

The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer's next shot was to kill himself.

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

5. Let teachers carry arms, ban gun-free zones to halt mass shootings

Walter Jackson emailed me this:



Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
by David A. Patten
December 15, 2012

Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday.

Lott, an author and college professor, told Newsmax that gun-free zones become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.

Lott’s landmark book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.

It is no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.

Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.

Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.

Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?

Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

Newsmax: Can you give readers an example of an incident where a teacher or authority-figure with a gun was able to thwart a violent shooting?

Dr. Lott: There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] — you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.

But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn’t carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide . . . These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don’t get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed.

Newsmax: How can society prevent such mass shootings, or are they avoidable at all?

Dr. Lott: About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.

But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. I’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill.

So their goal is to try to kill as many people as possible. So there are two issues here. One is focusing on the attention. And I think it’s pretty clear that . . . if people stopped mentioning their names — I'm not saying that’s possible — that’s one thing that would reduce their incentive to go and commit these crimes.

The second thing is to give people the option to protect themselves. One of the things I’ve written about recently is the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater. There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July.

Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.

The problem is, whether it is the Portland shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.

When you ban guns, rather than making it safer for the victims, you unintentionally make it safer for the criminals, because they have less to worry about. If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.”

My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun-control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear: Putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there.
Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.

I believe that the people who are pushing for these gun controls are well intentioned. I think they’re wrong. I think the things they’re going to make life more dangerous. But it’s understandable. If you see something bad that happens, and it happens with a gun, the natural reaction is: ‘Well, if I take the gun away, bad things won’t happen anymore.’ The problem is you have to realize that when you go and ban guns, you may only take them away from good law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. And to disarm good law-abiding citizens . . . you just make it easier for crime to occur, not harder.

You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns.

Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?

If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.

The bottom line seems to be when you make it costly for people to get permits, fewer people get permits. You particularly price out people who live in high-crime urban areas from being able to get permits, and those are the ones who benefit the most from having the option to defend themselves.

Newsmax: Do gun free zones invite these attacks?

Dr. Lott: Yes, they’re magnets for these attacks. They make them more likely. These gun-free zones are really tiny areas within a state, and yet that’s where these attacks occur time after time.

Whenever you see more than a few murders taking place, the odds are almost a hundred percent that they are going to occur at a place where permit-concealed handguns are banned. And they were doing it, ironically, in an attempt to try and make people safe. But the problem is it is law-abiding citizens who obey those bans, not the criminals.

Look at Virginia Tech, for example, where we had 32 people killed. If you were an adult with a concealed handgun permit, you could take your permit-concealed handgun virtually anyplace in the state, except for universities and a couple of other places. There are hardly any gun-free zones in Virginia. And yet, if you were a faculty member and you accidentally carried your permit-concealed handgun onto university owned property there, and you got caught, you were going to get fired and your academic career would be over.

You're not going to get an academic job anyplace in the country. Same thing with the students: If you get expelled for a firearm-related violation, your academic career is over. Those are real penalties. Those people’s lives are going to be dramatically changed. But if you take somebody who is a killer . . . you would be facing 32 death penalties or 32 life sentences, plus other charges. And the notion that somehow the charge of expulsion from school would be the key penalty that would keep them from doing it, not 32 death penalties, is absurd. It just doesn’t make any sense . . . It represents a much bigger real penalty for the law-abiding good citizens than it does for the criminals there.

So we have to think about who is going to be obeying these laws. And it’s true for gun-control laws generally. One of the things I try and do in "More Guns, Less Crime" is show what happens to gun rates when guns are banned. It would be nice if things were that simple, that going and banning guns would eliminate crime.

But what you find happening is murder rates and violent crime rates go up. And the question is why. It’s a pretty simple answer: Because the law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns, and not the criminals.

Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?

I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.

People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.

We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.

Newsmax: Could arming teachers and getting rid of gun-free zones have averted a tragedy such as we saw in Connecticut?

Well, I think two things would happen. One is, we see the way these killers search out places where people can’t defend themselves. So I think there’s at least a very good chance that if it is known teachers and others there would have permit-concealed handguns, it would have dissuaded the attack from occurring to begin with. Secondly, even if he did attack, it would be by far the safest course of action.

The amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone can get to the scene with a gun is very important in determining what the carnage is going to be. The faster you can get somebody [there], the more you can limit it. If you could get the police there in 8 minutes, which would be record time, that would be an eon for people who are there helplessly having to face the killer by themselves with no protection.

6. Bloomberg on unarmed Sandy Hook principal: "I don't know what a gun would have done"

This from a man who is surrounded by a lot of men with guns.

Mr. Mayor, if gun-free zones are so damned good, why don't you disarm your bodyguard?



Bloomberg on Unarmed Sandy Hook Principal: "I Don't Know What A Gun Would Have Done"
by Katie Pavlich
December 17, 2012

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert's comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.....I don't know what the gun would have done."

With this logic, I'm sure Bloomberg feels the same way about his armed body guards; that the guns they carry to protect him "do nothing." If sane and trained people with guns are capable of "doing nothing," then why do police and security guards carry them? Why do thousands of people a year save their own lives or the lives of others protecting themselves with guns?

7. Houston Democrat Precinct Chair: stop gun violence by shooting NRA members

Walter Jackson emailed me this:


by Awr Hawkins
December 17, 2012

Over the weekend, Houston Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias tweeted, "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?"

This, apparently, is part of what he calls "hard-hitting political commentary" on his blog "Bay Area Houston."
Prior to the asinine tweet broaching the subject of shooting NRA members as a solution to gun violence, Cobarruvias had spent some of his "hard-hitting political commentary" mocking conservatives -- or as Cobarruvias himself put it, by "laughing and puking on GOP Tea Baggers."

Among the other messages in the group in which Cobarruvias' tweet appeared were those which "advocated for the murder of NRA president Keene and all NRA members."

Liberal tolerance at its best.

8. Gov Cuomo: 'confiscation' option for upcoming New York gun laws [AUDIO]

Walter Jackson emailed me this:




Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D-N.Y.) during a radio interview with Albany’s WGDJ-AM said Thursday that all options, including confiscation and mandatory sales to the state, would be on the table for New York's proposed semi automatic gun ban legislation

9. Gov. Rick Perry: let teachers carry weapons

Walter Jackson emailed me this:



December 18, 2012

NORTH RICHLAND HILLS — Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated Monday that he supported allowing teachers and administrators to carry concealed handguns in response to the Connecticut school massacre that left 20 children dead.

Local school districts should decide their own policies, Perry said. But if someone has obtained a concealed-handgun license, he said, “you should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state.” He clarified that private property owners should be allowed to impose their own restrictions.

Perry was asked about calls for stricter gun control laws Monday at a tea party forum in North Richland Hills. Perry said that he believed lawmakers should consider mental health issues as well as ways to make schools safer.

“It appears that this was a young man who was very disturbed,” Perry said.

Some school districts across the state already allow school personnel to carry guns. When Perry talked about how he had read about one district allowing teachers, administrators and others to carry weapons, he was interrupted by loud applause from the crowd.

Perry has already directed Texas school districts to review their emergency operation plans in the wake of the massacre. His voice broke and he paused several times as he first acknowledged Friday’s shootings, calling them a tragedy that “is not right.”

“One of the things that I hope we don’t see from our federal government is this knee-jerk reaction from Washington, D.C., when there is an event that occurs, that they come in and they think they know the answer,” he said.

On stage with Perry were several Republican legislators who comprise what Perry called “the most conservative Legislature in the 28 years that I have served in Austin, Texas.”

Perry told audience members that he and his staff would work with new GOP lawmakers on their bills. He said he would make it a priority to make Texas more attractive to businesses seeking to move from other states.

He also repeated his opposition to establishing a health insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid under the health care overhaul backed by President Barack Obama. Rising health care costs from Medicaid alone would continue to eat up more of Texas’ budget in future years, Perry said.

“We’re going to go bankrupt,” he said. “So why would we want to add more people onto a program that already is headed in the wrong direction? I said it’s not unlike putting a thousand more people on the Titanic when you know how it’s going to end up.”

Perry did not address issues in which he disagrees with some tea party activists, including term limits and business-recruitment funds. He declined to speak to reporters afterward.

He did take questions about running for president a second time in 2016. Perry said he learned two lessons from his failed run for the GOP nomination: get into the race sooner, and don’t get into the race soon after back surgery, as he did last year. He said he would make “a number of decisions” about his future next summer.

“The presidency in 2016 is a pretty good piece down the road,” Perry said. “But with that said, I think it is important for all of us to really focus on this legislative session. Surely, the most important thing that we do for this country is to make sure we continue to keep Texas as this place where people know that freedom is still very valued.”

10. The case for gun rights is stronger than you think

EM Ed Levine emailed me this:



The case for gun rights is stronger than you think
by William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
December 19, 2012

Editor's note: William J. Bennett, a CNN contributor, is the author of "The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood." He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.

(CNN) -- On NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, I was asked how we can make our schools safer and prevent another massacre like Sandy Hook from happening again. I suggested that if one person in the school had been armed and trained to handle a firearm, it might have prevented or minimized the massacre.

"And I'm not so sure -- and I'm sure I'll get mail for this -- I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing," I said. "The principal lunged at this guy. The school psychologist lunged at the guy. Has to be someone who's trained. Has to be someone who's responsible."

Well, I sure did get mail. Many people agreed with me and sent me examples of their son or daughter's school that had armed security guards, police officers or school employees on the premises. Many others vehemently disagreed with me, and one dissenter even wrote that the blood of the Connecticut victims was ultimately on the hands of pro-gun rights advocates.

To that person I would ask: Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?

Evidence and common sense suggest yes.

In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.

In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.

These are but a few of many examples that the best deterrent of crime when it is occurring is effective self-defense. And the best self-defense against a gunman has proved to be a firearm.

And yet, there is a near impenetrable belief among anti-gun activists that guns are the cause of violence and crime. Like Frodo's ring in "The Lord of The Rings," they believe that guns are agencies of corruption and corrupt the souls of whoever touches them. Therefore, more guns must lead to more crime.

But the evidence simply doesn't support that. Take the controversial concealed-carry permit issue, for example.

In a recent article for The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, by no means an avowed gun-rights advocate, declared, "There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it."

Goldberg cites evidence from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, that concealed-carry permit holders actually commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.

The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.

According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.

This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.

In fact, after the expiration of the ban, The New York Times, whose editorial pages are now awash with calls for more gun restrictions, wrote in early 2005, "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."

But let's take the issue one step further and examine places where all guns, regardless of make or type, are outlawed: gun-free zones. Are gun-free zones truly safe from guns?

John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.

Do you own a gun that fell under the now-expired federal weapons ban?

These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."

To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars.

Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety.

11. Why did gun control fail the families of Newtown


Question One in Our National Conversation: Why Did Gun Control Fail the Families of Newtown
It is sickening that we have to discuss this with the dead not all buried, but such is our fallen world.
by Thomas Crown
December 17, 2012

Were we a decent society, we would allow the parents of Newtown to grieve before we started talking about taking away guns. We are not a decent society, and the ghoulish, deranged left is once again trying to use a tragedy as an opportunity.

So, as they begin their ritual descent into bathing in the blood of children about whom they wouldn’t care were they just inside the birth canal, let’s have the “conversation” about pretending away the Second Amendment they want. Because they want to change the law, the burden of proof lies on them; so here is the first question they must answer:

Why didn’t restrictive gun control laws save the victims of Newtown?

This is what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has to say about Connectictut’s gun control regime:

Connecticut has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of most guns without background checks and reduce risks to children, according to the Brady Campaign. In the organization’s 2009 state scorecards released for all 50 states, Connecticut earned 53 points out of a total of 100 and has the nation’s fourth strongest gun laws.

“Connecticut has done more than most states to combat illegal guns and has worked to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In fact, Connecticut has a one-of-a-kind law that allows a judge to remove guns from people who have been determined to be a threat to themselves or others,” said Ron Pinciaro, President of CT Against Gun Violence.

The Washington Post — no opponent of a disarmed citizenry — agrees with this characterization. Connecticut “has among the most stringent gun control laws on the books,” the Post notes, citing three disparate groups of experts, before allowing Connecticut’s chief Democrat to explain that his state can’t enforce its own laws without adult supervision.

I don’t believe that we should be making domestic policy based on anecdote or on a single event. No system is properly tested in a single instance. The proof of a policy is how it performs over time — after hundreds or thousands of events. But gun control proponents do not agree. Piers Morgan, Michael Moore, Rupert Murdoch, and many more seem to believe that the vicious and evil killings in Connecticut prove the need for more stringent gun control measures. They race to change the law in the wake of tragedies because they know that they long ago lost the policy debate and that cooler heads will reject any such regulation absent the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

A lesser-noted detail of America’s current demographics is that in the midst of an awful economic downturn, violent crime is falling. Americans recognize that gun crimes have continued to trend down as more law-abiding citizens have gotten access to firearms. So having failed to fool the people into signing onto their policies, they pretend that their ideas have been ignored — rather than considered and rejected again and again — and they call for a “national conversation,” a term of art the Obama Administration has embraced since the beginning that translates into American English as “agree with me, or I’ll regulate it anyway, democracy be damned, you idiots.”

Defenders of the Bill of Rights ought to welcome that debate, one that we’ve been having for every year of the roughly four decades I’ve drawn breath on this planet. (We keep having it because the Left, like the Roman legions, refuses to admit defeat until they win.) After all, we can and will win one more time if the sense of the American people (also known to its opponents as “the gun lobby,” “the Israel lobby,” and so on) is allowed to prevail. But if we are to discuss the value of gun restrictions, we first need an explanation from gun control advocates of why their ideas failed the victims in Newtown.

As noted above, according to the Brady Campaign, Connecticut has the nation’s fourth-strongest gun laws. The sale and possession of so-called assault weapons are banned under state law. As noted above, the state empowers judges to remove guns from those who constitute a threat. The state earns high marks for gun dealer regulation, reporting of lost or stolen guns, background checks, permit to purchase, child safety, and earns the maximum score on guns in public places.

So here’s the challenge for gun control advocates: explain why you failed the people of Newtown. You cited Connecticut as a national example. You said its laws “reduce risks to children.” You gave no state a higher rating for keeping guns out of public places — like schools.

And a criminally insane man stole legally-owned guns (owned under Connecticut’s regime) after being denied their legal purchase, broke in through a window, and killed children and adults — adults who were not armed to shoot back, and so died unable to save the children who also died.

You want this one event to be a national test? Fine. Why are there 20 children dead when the state of Connecticut did what you said they should to keep their people safe?

Once you answer that question, we can get this conversation underway.

12. What to do about monsters?

Joel Michello emailed me this:



What to do about monsters?
by Jennifer Rubin
December 17, 2012

The mass murder of little children is like other acts of unadulterated evil beyond the comprehension of sane and decent men and women. After the shock and the grieving, the first step to addressing this and other horrors is some humility. Given the number of false news reports (and inane instant commentary) we don’t know enough about this crime to know what if any mental-health care measures, gun control, or security systems could have prevented this shocking act.

It is a mistake however to either do nothing on the theory “Crazy people do bad things and we can’t stop them” or to willy-nilly start passing laws (especially ones like the assault weapons ban, which addressed only the appearance of semiautomatic assault weapons). Neither the First nor Second amendments nor the personal autonomy of the mentally ill can be absolute. Abraham Lincoln is generally credited with the expression “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Nor a death sentence for innocents in movie theaters, schools, malls and other gathering spots.

It would be a welcome change of pace to resist the urge to introduce a mass of legislation or to use action or inaction as a political weapon. It makes far more sense, as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) suggested on Sunday, to convene a serious commission to delve into the nexus of culture, mental health and gun laws. (In fact he’ll have free time next year and should head it up.) There is a huge body of criminology and other factual evidence to review that would assist in reaching some well-defined, sensible steps that would diminish (albeit not eliminate) these mass shootings. The more thoughtful the investigation and the better the information, the more likely agreement can be reached.

The worst thing would be a rush to introduce sweeping legislation unfocused on the issue at hand — generally young, mentally troubled males getting access to deadly weapons. It would serve the grandstanders’ purposes but accomplish little else. It is a misnomer to say we haven’t had a debate on gun control; what we have is an uninformed one untethered to facts and unserious in zeroing in on the worst crimes, mass murder of innocents. Maybe this time it will be different.

13. We know how to stop school shootings

Scott Hudson emailed me this:


by Ann Coulter
December 19, 2012

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

14. I am a physician and guns are a disease

Another physician who is saying an inanimate object is a disease. I hope he doesn't mind everyone snickering.


I am a physician and guns are a disease
by James C.Salwitz, MD
August 8, 2012

I feel guilty about the killings in Colorado. As a doctor, those horrid events are a personal failure. I have spent a career fighting illness, often investing hundreds of hours in a single cancer case, yet in minutes, a dozen people vanish and 58 are grievously wounded. Another 32,000 will die this year from gunshots, over 76,000 will be crippled and I cannot keep up with this slaughter. Why is this my fault? Because, I am a physician and guns are a disease.

The great plagues of history killed hundreds of millions: Polio, Small Pox, Rabies, Yellow Fever, Influenza, Measles, Dengue and now AIDS. These diseases are all caused by viral infections. What is a virus? It is a perfect submicroscopic machine with only one purpose. It does not create beauty like a flower, nourishment like a fruit tree, nor knowledge like man. Its sole purpose is to create more viruses and at this it is the ideal mechanism.

A virus recreates itself by infecting the cells of the host on which it preys. It destroys those cells, turning them into virus factories until overwhelmed by billions of virus particles the host, often a human, becomes ill. As virus numbers explode the host gradually dies, the whole body becoming a massive sick infected virus-shedding machine and as a last act the virus spreads to the next person. Then the cycle begins again, making new viruses. That is all viruses do, reproduce themselves.

Where once we required guns to protect ourselves from wild animals and to provide food, in a modern society this is a rare need. Except for marksmen who enjoy target shooting or hunting, guns have limited use for recreation. Therefore, in a modern society, what is the purpose of guns?

Guns have multiplied through our great Nation like a highly virulent virus. They infect one person at a time. Other people become threatened believing their neighbor or that “other” person might be armed. They go out and get guns, more guns. Eventually, like the virus, a gun kills someone. Then, just as a cell bursts and spreads virus through a person’s body, the fear from a gun death results in dozens more grabbing a firearm. “Gun permits skyrocket in Colorado.” More people buy guns and more people are shot. What is the purpose of a gun in the United States? The purpose of a gun is to create guns.

Our society is sick with spreading Gun Disease. It is does not matter whether a gun is legal or illegal, it adds to the carnage and fear and results in more guns. To defend the disease because it is legal or Constitutional is irrelevant. Breast and pancreatic cancer are legal and Constitutional, but I have never heard it said that we should stop doing cancer research because everyone has the right to get sick. A civilized nation does not encourage disease.

There is no immunity from the either guns or bullets and under the pressure of enough fear of gun violence, anyone will pick up a firearm and anyone can be shot. Guns are contagious and epidemic. Whether it is a four year old on a play ground in a drive by, a cop on the beat, the owner of a pharmacy, a cheerleader walking with a friend or 12 people who make the fatal decision of watching a movie, this kind of sickness is primitive and unsupportable. Like a host with a virus infection, we will become so burdened by the mass of arms that America, as we know it, will collapse.

In the Middle Ages, plagues were blamed on Witches and Warlocks. In order to fight infection, men and women were burned at the stake. Epidemics spread until entire societies were wiped out. Our need to find blame for gun violence whether it is demented criminals, computer games, poverty or drugs is equally ignorant. In order to prevent contagious infections, whether it is from virus or guns, you must get rid of the infecting agent.

Guns create guns. Feeding off their human hosts, they are a fatal infestation of our Nation. Perfect, uncaring, relentless, soulless metal machines, they proliferate and we die. The history of medicine makes the future clear. How we act now will decide whether our society survives.

15. Stop the proliferation of guns by ending the fear


Stop the proliferation of guns by ending the fear
by James C. Salwitz, MD
December 19, 2012

“I kissed my daughter as she left for school today and realized it might be the last time I would ever see her.”
-New Jersey mom, three days after the Sandy Hook, CT shootings

On December 14, 2012, twenty school children died of the Gun Disease, shot making gingerbread houses. As guns beget guns, firearm injury and death spread like a virus. Doctors, the healthcare system, have failed to protect the most vulnerable part of our population from this highly infectious illness, and innocents continue to die.

Once upon a time, most guns were owned by people with the maturity to control their use. Lawmen, hunters, marksman, and owners of vulnerable property used firearms as tools and exercised a high level of safety. However, guns have massively proliferated and are in the grasp of those without the capacity or desire to limit their violence. So now, instead of improving or protecting life, guns guarantee no one is safe and the children die.

The critical question regarding any infestation or disease, which kills thousands of people, is how does it spread? What is the method of contagion? Lyme disease is spread by tick, lung cancer by smoking and diabetes by overeating and limited exercise. What do guns need to proliferate and kill? Fear.

With every gun purchased, every bullet discharged and every child buried, the level of fear in our country increases. As fear increases more lock their doors, bar their windows, and look with anxiety toward their neighbors. Parents listen as their children’s nightmares replace holiday hope with horror, bare their knuckles in anger, and in desperation and fear they do the only act that seems to remain; they buy a gun. Fear is the root cause, the necessary event, for the spread of this disease.

If we are going to stop the slaughter and not simply accept the blood of innocents as the cost for a distorted view of the American dream, then we must overcome fear. Fear of “others.” Fear of change. Fear of taking responsibility for our nation. Fear of fear itself. As long as we are so frightened that we deny the need to work together, we will fail to give our children that most basic freedom, the right to life.

Who should “fix” this problem? Every one of us. Doctors, because gun deaths are linked to psychiatric illness and if they are going to be stopped mental health services in this country must be improved. Politicians, because those they represent are frightened and dying. Law enforcement, because criminal ownership of weapons increases gun violence and because effective gun laws are vital. Teachers, mothers and fathers because they have a duty to raise children in a safe environment. Leaders of industry, because a country which the world sees as a shooting gallery cannot compete or lead. Major pro-gun organizations because they have the expertise to propose reasonable solutions, and rampant shooting deaths put responsible gun ownership in jeopardy. Gun manufacturers, not only because of their unique knowledge, but because if they do not help stop the violence they are morally culpable for the slaughter.

Random death spread by fear terrorizes all. The future not only of our children’s lives, but of the fabric for which this nation stands, is threatened. Together we can conquer. The question is “does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

16. Law enforcement deaths down 20 percent in 2012: study

Bill Watkins emailed me this:



Law enforcement deaths down 20 percent in 2012: study
by Mary Wisniewski
December 17, 2012

(Reuters) - In a bit of rare positive news in a nation focused on the effects of gun violence, a police memorial fund reported Monday that deaths among law enforcement personnel are down 20 percent this year compared with 2011.

The preliminary report by the Washington, D.C.-based National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund found that a total of 123 federal, state and local officers died in the line of duty through December 17, 2012, with 45 from firearms-related deaths, 50 from traffic-related deaths, and 28 from other causes.

That compares with 154 officers who died during the same period in 2011, including 65 from firearms-related deaths. Total deaths are down 20 percent and gun deaths down 31 percent.

The Fund credits an increased focus on safety for the drop in deaths, according to spokesman Steve Groeninger. This includes more officers choosing to wear body armor, which can offer some protection in traffic accidents as well as against bullets. Body armor does not always save lives.

"I think agency heads are doing more to manage their departments to make sure each of the men and women make it home at the end of their shifts," said Groeninger.

A study released last month by the D.C.-based Police Executive Research Forum found that 92 percent of a nationally representative sample of police officers are required to wear body armor, either all or most of the time when on duty. In 2009, only 59 percent of police agencies required officers to wear body armor at least some of the time.

The massacre last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which resulted in the deaths of 26 people, including 20 children, has refocused national debate on gun control. The shooter also took his own life and that of his mother.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was greeted with applause from city police officers at a graduation and promotion ceremony Monday when he called for a local and national ban on assault weapons.

Groeninger said the Memorial Fund does not have a public stated policy on assault weapons.

"But I will say that our organization supports every and any policy that we keep officers more safe as they do their jobs," Groeninger said. "It can be easily understood that removing those types of weapons would certainly help law enforcement. They've been facing increased firepower."

The Fund's report broke down fatalities by state, with Texas ranking number one in law enforcement officer deaths with 9 in 2012, followed by Georgia with 7.

The 2012 total includes the deaths in Topeka, Kansas Sunday of two officers at a grocery store parking lot. The suspect was killed in a shoot-out with police Monday morning.

17. My AR 15 is not an assault rifle


My AR 15 Is Not An Assault Rifle!
by Jan Morgan
December 20, 2012

News Anchors, Reporters, and Commentators, over the past few days have spread the epidemic of stupid with their language and gun talk that clearly demonstrates most of them have scant knowledge on the subject of firearms.

I have listened to news people, who are PAID TO DELIVER FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THEIR VIEWERS, consistently refer to the AR 15 as a “HEAVY WEAPON… AN ASSAULT RIFLE”… An AUTOMATIC RIFLE… A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.. Bill O’Reilly even questioned how Nancy Lanza could have legally acquired such a heavy weapon in a state with such strict gun control laws.

It is one thing to not have knowledge on a given subject yet earnestly seek it. That is commendable.
It is another to act and speak on that subject as if you are knowledgable, using wrong terminology with the intent to sensationalize or push a personal agenda.

My AR is not an assault rifle.
It is not an assault weapon.
It will never be used to criminally assault anyone.
My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes.
It is simply a modern musket.

In addition, the fact that I go to the gun range on a regular basis, does not make me an American of questionable character. The fact that I am a gun enthusiast and may legally own multiple guns/rifles does not make me a criminal or someone who should be closely watched by the government.

90 million gun owners with over 300 million guns KILLED NO ONE LAST YEAR.

Owning an AR 15 is a legal right. Owning an AR 15 does not make me a dangerous gun fanatic any more than owning a Corvette over the usual less expensive average sports car makes someone a car dangerous car fanatic.

I am not ashamed… I am proud to say I own a Bushmaster AR 15.

To all the businesses who are pulling them from their shelves, I say, SHAME ON YOU for buckling to public pressure. The Founders would be so proud that you bravely stood your ground for the 2nd Amendment. You will never get my business again.

To all the Americans who are rushing to the stores to buy the AR and ammo before both are no longer available, I say, smart move. The public hysteria will most certainly lead to a ban on these amazing rifles… at least until the next mass shooting with a revolver, knife, or some other weapon. Then there will be a ban on those. (sigh)

Back to the irresponsible news anchors:
If these news commentators are going to talk about firearms and expect their positions to be taken seriously, they should at least become semi-educated about rifles or keep their mouths shut.

Words like “assault”, “heavy weapon”, “military style”, in describing semi-automatic guns and rifles in relation to the recent mass shooting, are either used intentionally by news anchors to sensationalize or it is a clear display of ignorance on their part.

Neither is acceptable.

18. Getting started with reloading on a budget: the lady shows you how [VIDEO]

Terrell Prude Jr. emailed me this:


Hi Philip,

This is re: the mention of the right to reload being of equal importance to the right to keep and bear arms. As Teddy Kennedy said in the '70's, "no ammo, no guns." Given the current ammo shortage, I believe reloading takes on an especial importance.

Here's a basic intro to it, starring my cameralady, who does the reloading here. Nearly the entire Web site is dedicated to instructional videos on how to reload.

Note that reloading supplies are a lot easier to get than ammo. If people have questions, they can shoot me an email at "".

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention, where their forums are a wealth of excellent info on reloading.



OK now, what's the subject material, and why should you care?

Reloading, also known as "handloading", of ammunition, is a very old practice. At times, it is even necessary. Ammunition shortages have happened before, and they will undoubtedly happen again. Reloading our own thus takes on an especial importance, if we want to be able to practice and actually get/remain proficient at marksmanship. So why do so many shooters not choose to learn reloading?

Let's face it, folks. There are some psychological barriers for some people to getting into reloading their own ammunition. One of them is how much it can cost. We're here to show you it doesn't need to cost four figures. Not even close.

Another one, it turns out, is sex-specific. Plenty of men reload today, and they'd love to get their wives/girlfriends into it as well. Problem: from what I've heard, many of these women are a bit intimidated by the prospect of reloading. This, obviously, is not optimal. Like most things, reloading is perfectly safe if you follow certain basic rules of safety.

This video series attempts to deal with both of those issues, especially the second. My cameralady, "Miss Bleeding Heart Conservative", or "Miss BHC", does all of the reloading in this series. She will show you that it is in fact easy to make a box of 50 rounds of your very own ammunition. WHO says ladies can't learn to reload??

The press used here is the single-stage "Lee Reloader Press" from Lee Precision, Inc. This press, as of the year 2010, sells for a street price of about $30. The set of dies used is about $37, a good scale can be had for about $50, and other than standard protective eye gear, that's really all you need to get started. All total, you can get entirely set up to make your own ammunition for under $250.

You will see that not everything goes perfectly here. This is as it is in life, right? Remember that you're seeing a real-life reloading session, and this is good. You need to see some examples of what to do when things don't go exactly perfectly. The important thing to remember, when things don't go exactly right, is, STOP, CHECK, DOUBLE-CHECK, FIX, and only then, RESUME IF SAFE TO DO SO.

As Miss BHC says, "hey, it's like needlepoint; you can do this."

19. The gun glossary


The Gun Glossary
What’s a semi-automatic? What counts as an assault weapon?
By Mark Joseph Stern
December 17, 2012

Following Friday’s tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., semi-automatic guns and assault weapons have been thrust into the public spotlight. Politicians are discussing the merits of a renewed assault weapon bans, while police and reporters are investigating the weapons used by Adam Lanza on his rampage. But the terms used by the media are often confusing and imprecise, and few reporters explain the differences among various types of firearms. Below is a glossary of gun terms that are relevant in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Assault weapons: There is little agreement on what constitutes an assault weapon, even among firearm enthusiasts. Legal definitions vary from state to state: Connecticut defines an assault weapon as “any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user.” In Virginia, any gun with a magazine capacity greater than 20 rounds counts. The now-expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban, passed in 1994, laid out complex guidelines to define which firearms were considered assault weapons. (Most were AR-15s and AK-47s.) The federal definition of an assault weapon expired with that law in 2004.

However, most gun experts agree that fully automatic firearms (defined below) count as assault weapons, as do some higher-caliber semi-automatic guns.

Semi-automatic: Almost all guns in the United States today, including pistols, rifles, and handguns, are semi-automatic. A semi-automatic firearm fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled. The weapon can be loaded with magazines containing various numbers of bullets; the semi-automatic handgun used in the Fort Hood shooting, for instance, was equipped to shoot 20 rounds in 5.3 seconds. Different grips and mounts can modify the ease and accuracy with which a semi-automatic gun can be fired; Congress attempted to limit such add-ons in the 1994 ban.*

Automatic: An automatic weapon fires bullets as long as its trigger is squeezed. Well-known examples include machine guns, which are automatic firearms often mounted to a wall or rail in order to increase stability and accuracy, and submachine guns, which are portable.* Automatic weapons vary in legality across the United States; they are regulated by the federal government but are legal to own.

Handgun: The only universally agreed-upon definition of a handgun is a gun that can be held it in a single hand. According to a gun expert at NOVA Firearms, a firearms dealer in Northern Virginia, no handguns would ever be considered an assault weapon. Most are semi-automatic, but some handguns do qualify as automatic weapons, able to shoot many rounds at once. A common type of handgun is a semi-automatic pistol, a small firearm with a single, nonrevolving chamber.* The gun Jared Lee Loughner used to shoot Gabrielle Giffords and kill six people in Tucson, Ariz., a Glock 19, was a semi-automatic pistol.

Revolver: A firearm with a revolving cylinder that can fire several bullets (usually six) at a time without reloading. Each time the hammer is cocked, the cylinder moves the next bullet into place. Most remaining “cock and fire” guns—those for which the gun must be cocked each time it is fired—are revolvers. Cock and fire revolvers are called “single action” revolvers. No revolvers are fully automatic.*

Rifle: Long-barreled firearms with a groove carved into the barrel walls to give bullets spin. Rifles can be single action, semi-automatic, or fully automatic.*

AR-15: The semi-automatic rifle Adam Lanza used as his primary weapon. Lanza’s specific model was a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, using several magazines of 30 bullets each. His mother, Nancy Lanza, acquired the gun legally. Certain models were proscribed under the 2004 ban, but myriad loopholes allowed slightly modified versions of the gun to be sold legally. In the Aurora shooting, James Holmes used an AR-15 which he had purchased legally from gun stores and ammunition that he had purchased on the Internet.*

*Corrections, Dec. 18, 2012: This article originally stated that grips and mounts can modify the power of a semi-automatic gun (they modify the ease of use); that machine guns are mounted to a wall or rail (they often are, but not always); that a pistol is a firearm with a single, nonrevolving chamber (some pistols are, but not all); that no revolvers are semi-automatic (none are fully automatic); and that James Holmes bought his weapons on the Internet (he bought his ammunition on the Internet). The article also defined a rifle as a firearm with grooves on its barrel walls. Many other modern firearms, including handguns, have rifled barrels; more precisely, a rifle is a long-barreled gun with such grooves.

20. Some German gun laws for comparison

Here is some useful information when debating someone about the difference between European gun laws and American gun laws. These are for Germany:

1) Any applicant under the age of 25 for a weapons license needs to undergo a thorough psychological and psychiatric evaluation. It consists of several tests, looking at physical and social risk taking, personality profile assessments and 1-on-1 discussions. Cost is steep at ~200USD but once you're 25 or you only want a shotgun or .22 at age 18, no need to have this evaluation.

2) The background check is a thorough process that takes place over 2-4 weeks. Health Authorities, Local police, Criminal databases are all consulted. Often, there is a personal meeting between the authority and the applicant. It's shall-issue.

3) Firearms need to be locked in a certified vault when not in use. Weapons and ammunition have to be stored separately. Only the weapons permit holder can have access to the vault. Definitely a big difference and impractical for self-defence...

4) In order to obtain a weapons permit, the applicant has to provide a reason for possession. Standard reasons usually are sports shooting, hunting, personal protection, collecting, technical expertship, etc. Every reason has to be substantiated, e.g. sports shooters have to have practiced the sport for at least 12 months before a license can be granted. The Shooting Ranges are usually provided by county-subsidized sports clubs. This requirement is the biggest difference to the US and would seem impractical and irrelevant to us.

5) There is mandatory training in safety and laws before one can obtain a license.

21. Warning America: don't give up your guns! [VIDEO]

Carolyn Worssam emailed me this:



22. Antis were a "no show" at Saturday's debate with VCDL president

60 people showed up for a debate on gun control in Virginia Beach put on by the Tidewater Libertarian Party on Saturday. I was there, but there was a problem - 4 antis were invited, from the League of Women voters, to a chief of police, but no one showed.

So, I presented my side of various gun control questions, including some questions fielded from the audience.

I think everyone had a good time, but a true debate would have been better, of course.

Included in the audience were many rank-and-file VCDL members, as well as our Southeast Virginia gun show coordinators, Gary Moeller and Jerry Brunner, and Board members Dennis O'Connor and John Fenter. Thanks to everyone who turned out!

23. Volunteers needed for Norfolk gun show on January 26 and 27

It is that time again for another gun show on Jan.26 and 27. Coordinator Jerry Brunner is seeking people to to help at the VCDL booth for Saturday or Sunday shifts:

Saturday: 9 AM to 1:00 PM or 1 PM to 5 PM

Sunday: 10 AM to 1PM or 1 PM to 5 PM

VCDL booths have been incredibly busy since the Connecticut shooting and we need volunteers to keep things running smoothly!

If you are new to working the booth, we will pair you up with a veteran. It's easy, fun, and gratifying!

Please contact Jerry Brunner at to help at the Norfolk Scope. Jerry can also be reached at: 757-407-2711

24. 2013 Traveler's Guide Mail Order Sale and Deadline (LAST CALL for 2013!)

The Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States is being
ordered and is expected to arrive about the 3rd week in January. If
you do not want to wait to the next local gun show have we got a deal
for you....

The VCDL Fulfillment Center has a copy on order with your name on it!!
If you would like one we need to receive your order by January 11th.

There are two options:

If you want it sent in a sturdier envelope and by priority mail the
cost will be $20.00

If you want it sent in a standard manila envelope and by first class
mail the cost will be $18.00

If you include a copy of your membership card you can reduce the price by $2.

Also, if you typically buy your copy from a VCDL table at a gun show,
please include a note with the show's location so we do not swamp our
coordinators with more than they need.

To order a guide, please send a check or money order
made out to "VCDL" and send to:

VCDL Fulfillment Center
PO Box 254
Garrisonville, Virginia 22463
ATT: Book Sales

Also, please consider including a donation to either the VCDL, the