The panel's advice: Tell people to run and hide earlier.

The editorial staff at Investor's Business Daily rips into Gov. Kaine's report on the VT shooting spree. Calling the report "clueless", the IBD staff takes the panel to task for ignoring the obvious.

"Warning the students, faculty and staff might have made a difference," the governor's panel wrote. "So the earlier and clearer the warning, the more chance an individual had of surviving." That's the panel's advice: Tell people to run and hide earlier.

Of the inaction between the first two deaths and the rest of the killings, the report said: "There does not seem to be a plausible scenario of a university response to the double homicide that could have prevented the tragedy of considerable magnitude on April 16."

The IBD editorial goes on to point out that there was indeed one course of action that not only could have been followed, it was specifically rejected by VT officials.

The VA General Assembly rejected House Bill 1572 that would have barred VT and other public institutions from establishing "gun-free zones" on their campuses. The bill would have allowed students to possess firearms on campus if they held valid CCW permits. VT lobbied against that bill. In fact, a VT spokesman stated after the bill was rejected "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on campus."

"Feeling" something does not make it so.

Making a campus a "gun-free zone" only works if everyone on that campus agrees to obey the rules. However, those inclined to break society's rule against murder are unlikely to obey administrative rules about not bringing weapons on campus. So despite the "feelings" of campus adminstrators, declaring a "gun-free zone" only affects those who have no murderous intent and thus don't need the rule in the first place. People like the VT shooter ignore such rules and end up being the only one in the area with a gun. Experience shows that allowing a murderer a monopoly on violence is a really bad idea.

The IBD staff then goes on to contrast the results at VT to those at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002...

Surely VT officials knew that in January 2002, when a professor and a student were killed on the nearby campus of the Appalachian School of Law, two of the three students who overpowered the gunman before he could kill more innocent victims were armed.

...where the outcome was quite different. Instead of having free rein over the campus until the police arrived, the shooter there was stopped by armed students before he could kill dozens. (This detail was scrupulously ignored by the MSM!) In that case, fact trumped feelings and innocent students and teachers weren't trapped in a "gun-free zone".

By the way, another term for a "gun-free zone" is a "kill box". But perhaps I shouldn't mention that. I might hurt someone's feelings.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Visual aids for AFP reporters...

An update to the story below about bullets and cartridges...

The Dissident Frogman offers some visual aids for those AFP reporters and editors who are having trouble identifying cartridge components. And who better to instruct them than a French mime?

Powered by ScribeFire.

A living laboratory

Over at Captain's Quarters, Capt. Ed weighs in on British gun laws and a recent story in the Telegraph on "skyrocketing" gun crime in the UK. Britain, of course, has some of the strictest gun laws in the Western world. They banned nearly all handguns in the wake of the Dunblane "massacre". Unfortunately (for the British people), the UK is proving something that we've maintained on this side of the pond for years: Criminals and crazies don't pay attention to gun laws. Those who do pay attention to them are the very people who don't need laws to tell them not to commit murder.

For some time now, many nations of the British Commonwealth have been playing the part of living laboratories. Since they are so similar to the US in terms of culture, they make a nice way to test gun laws before they can be implemented here. (Of course, this really sucks for the test subjects citizens there. Who wants to be a lab rat in an experiment where the rat ends up in pieces?!?) The results are in. They have been experiencing the very consequences of gun control that we've predicted every time similar schemes are proposed here; namely that only criminals will have guns as a result and that they will use those guns to prey upon the weak.

Those on the other side of the argument have claimed that eliminating guns will cause criminals to abandon them in a kind of reverse arms race. The theory is that they won't use guns if knives or even fists will do. (As though getting stabbed or beaten to death makes one less dead than had a gun been used!) The reality is that like any other predator, criminals seek to overwhelm their prey. A lion doesn't want to be barely able to kill a zebra; she wants her sisters and her to take it down in seconds and strangle it before it can kick one of them. For the lion, the hunt isn't about getting into a knock-down-drag-out with something that can kill them; it's about getting something to eat. Human predators are no different. Breaking into a home isn't about getting into a gunfight or a brawl with the owner; it's about getting the stuff inside. (And that "stuff" might just include people.) Having a gun, whether the victim has legal access to one or not, tips the odds even more favorably to the criminal's side. Because of that, the reverse arms race doesn't happen as predicted. The reality, instead, is what we see in Britain. The innocent, obeying their government's gun laws, fall victim in ever increasing numbers to those who ignore the law.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Off-topic but...

I'm guessing that a lot of you who visit this site are self-described "gun nuts". As proud gun nuts, you should able to spot something fishy with this photo from AFP and its caption...

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said.(AFP/Wissam al-Okaili)

OK... For our non-gun nut visitors: Those are unfired rounds. Do you see the little, copper, pointy things at the end of the "bullets". Those are the bullets; the rest of the assemblies she's holding are the cases, the primers, and the unburned gunpowder inside. The brass case holds the whole thing together and is ejected out the side of the rifle when it's fired. The part that goes out the barrel and applies the hurt to the target is the little, copper, pointy bit at the end. The only way these cartridges hit her house is if the troops threw them at her!

I knew that we had some tough troops serving in Iraq, but I had no idea that they were inserting the bullets manually. That's tough!

Hat tip: The Autonomist and Instapundit.

Iraq on Yahoo! News Photos

Powered by ScribeFire.

HR 2640: Sensible Solution or Trojan Horse?

Clayton Cramer examines HR 2640 (NICS Improvement) in the latest edition of the Shotgun News.

In short, he finds no there there. Those who oppose the bill (Caveat: As it's currently written!) are objecting to things that either aren't in the bill, aren't addressed by the bill, or pose no more of a threat to gun owners than does existing law. And arguably, the bill makes things better for gun owners by establishing an appeals process for those adjudicated as mentally defective.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Updated News Briefs

Tony has posted an update to the News Briefs page...

Canales News Briefs

Powered by ScribeFire.

"Why pass an ineffective law on guns?"

Chuck Michel takes on the silliness of gun theft reporting laws...

Ironically, the ordinance cannot be used against the real bad guys. No law can compel lawbreakers to report themselves. So a straw purchaser who legally buys a gun cannot be compelled to report that he resold it illegally. And since it wasn't actually lost or stolen, he hasn't violated the ordinance. Similarly, if a felon prohibited from possessing a gun illegally possesses one anyway, and it is lost or stolen, he can be prosecuted for having the gun in the first place, but cannot be prosecuted for failing to incriminate himself by reporting the loss.

Powered by ScribeFire.

One eBayer's reaction to the eBan...

Hurry up and place your bid on a gen-you-wine, full-auto, assault rock.

Powered by ScribeFire.

eBay Extends The eMiddle Digit to Gun Owners

Perhaps it's caused by something they put in Pez candies...

The NRA-ILA is reporting that eBay has banned all gun and ammo related listings. The online auction site long ago banned the sale of firearms on their site, but now they are extending that ban to “any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun.” Their list of newly banned items reads like it was written by a typical "Ewwww... Guns are icky!" liberal. We're still trying to figure out what a "bullet tip" is. Here is the full text of the NRA-ILA release...

Friday, August 03, 2007

Years ago, eBay banned the sale of all complete firearms on its online auction and shopping website. However, they did continue to allow the sale of parts and many accessories. This week, a spokesman for eBay announced that the company would ban the sale of all gun-and-ammunition-related parts and components. The ban is set to begin in mid-August, when eBay will prohibit the listing of “any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun.” This prohibition will include, according to eBay, “bullet tips, brass casings and shells, barrels, slides, cylinders, magazines, firing pins, trigger assemblies, etc.” In explaining the decision to restrict these items, Matt Halprin, eBay’s Vice President, Trust & Safety, said, “After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team – along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc.– have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require.” [emphasis added] With this action, eBay sends the message that they don’t want, or appreciate, law-abiding gun owners’ business. By banning these legal products, eBay is adopting the anti-gun movement’s opposition to all legal gun ownership. Fortunately, gun owners and sportsmen have alternatives. The following companies operate websites designed for the buying and selling of firearms and related products: www.GunsAmerica.com; www.AuctionArms.com; and www.GunBroker.com.

First, let's all be clear that eBay belongs to its owners and not us. We're in no position to dictate to a business how they must operate. If they want to sell sex toys and hash pipes but not guns, that's their call. However, that doesn't mean that we must patronize their business. If you were planning on "eBaying" a few extra gun parts or accessories, or anything outdoors related for that matter, please consider paying your listing fees to one of the fine sites listed above instead. If you were planning on bidding on such items, please check these sites first. First off, you may find a better selection. Secondly, and more importantly, you'll find sites operated by those who show more respect for your 2nd Amendment rights.

Powered by ScribeFire.