Commercial surrogacy on the rise.

I don't usually blog about issues like this, but I found this one particulary touching.

People are paying as little as $10 000 to have an Indian national bare their child. That includes fertilisation, medical expenses and the surrogate mothers fee. Said women normally make $25 dollars a week doing "regular" work, so when they get around $4500 to carrry somebody else's child, many are willing to do so.

This article by Fox paints a pretty pink picture if you ask me, but not necessairely unrealistic. It's rather surreal to read how lightly these women take the matter, strikes me as highly odd. Then again, I am not them, I don't know what life in India is like ... a good read at any rate.

The article warns of these services becoming a luxury to the rich, rather than a way for infertile couples to have a child of their own. Fools! One of my stateside friends reported that having his baby cost' him $5000 dollar in insurance related costs alone! Include medical checkups, classes taken to bear through delivery, time spent away from work during the pregnancy ... heck, ten grand is starting to sound like a bargain, allowing working mothers to keep working for an extra three to four months.

How soon will this become a commercial industry? Will women give up actually "having" their own children in exchange for a cheaper deal elsewhere? Would companies encourage their female employees to do so?
Coorporations are already starting to rival federal governments in terms of power in certain regions and on certain fields, and you may not like to hear it, but they are already trying to excert control over their employees family lifes in an attempt to maximise the amount of time spent working)
Skilled and trained workers are an important asset to these people, do you think that they'd pass up the chance of removing a womans pregnency from the equation for a measely ten grand? You know how big companies tend to forget about the human element in fuction of profit ...

Can you imagine a future where companies encourage their female employees to not have their children themselves? It used to be science fiction, right now it's projection, but how is this going to turn out?

Stop snitch'n, English fashion

One day the headmaster of a school tries to break up quarreling at the schools gates, and ends up getting stabbed to death by a pupil, that was twelve years ago.

Still, these days the wife of the deceasd man is being threathened at her doorstep to not talk about the events again, becasue some people might get angry ...

I'm pretty sure that Sebastian would be ever so sympathetic if this poor lady were to apply for a shotgun permit. No, this isn't just the UK, it happens to everybody in any country. Sebastian attracted the attention of local thugs in his efforts to clean up his American neighbourhood (litterally, he went around cleaning up trash with other volounteers) He's recieved death threaths himself.

They will just use other tools

Just a couple of examples of tools that criminals will use when deprived of guns. A couple of Canadian tourists was attacked by a gang of criminals wielding the bat, knifes and screwdrivers were taken from them later. Also in Brittish Ireland, a kid was pummeled with a shovel.

And don't tell me that less people are dying. Teenage homicide has never been this high!

Merry condolences ... again ...

Another teenager was killed, in the heart of Londen this time round, officially raising the annual teenage death count to 26.

There's an epidemic of violence going on, and banning guns and knifes and hammers and fake swords has done NOTHING to make it go away.

Sebastian on Cam &Co.

Sebastiam from Pro gun progressive appeared on the NRA podcast Cam &Co., explaining how the Baltimore police told him to "stop snitching".

On the Nra website ,in the area on the upper left, you'll need to bear through LaPierres little speech, then a clickable link to the podcast will appear.

It's the thursday 28 episode, about a quarter of the way in. Also appearing is a person defending hunting with dogs, discussion on the Give them back trial and hours more.

2007 bloodiest year for law enforcement

My attention as drawn by this article on the ABC news website: if we ignore the large number of fatalities in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, 2007 has been the bloodiest year yet for Law enforcement, with 186 fatalities.

Obviously, I went looking for the core data, found on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund website.

Most of these eaths are traffic incident related, shootings take the second place followed by health-related issues like heart attacks.
The guns used in the shotings were averagely documented:

Handguns: 51
Shotguns: 8
Rifles: 8
"Assault rifles": 1
(note, there is one gun missing somewhere, as this doesn't add up to the 79 gunshot fatalities)

Food for discussion the next time Carolyn McCarthy claims that her Assault weapon bill targets the guns used most often to kill police officers.

"Give them back" trial to be delayed?

It's a well known story amongs gun rights activists: the confiscation of legally owned firearms in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:



The NRA has been trying to map all the victims of these events, but this has been a daunting task.
The lack of proper recordkeeping and the relocation of many of the victims is making it very difficult for them to clearly establish a pattern of unwarranted seizures.

Hoping to find more victims, they have requested the trial, where they will sue to have the seized property returned to its rightful owners, to be delayed accoring to CNN.

BBC couldn't be clearer:

Gun crime in the UK is going UP!
It even tripled over a ten year period in Northamptonshire!

They also published a comprehensive article on the origins of these weapons.

Merry christmas!

My one love got me the megadeth warchest!

If you start spotting numerous spelling errors and typos in my posts, I've lost the use of my ring- and middle fingers. (*)

I'm the only one in love with snow enough

A califonian highway patrol officer has been accused of stealing over a million worth of cocaine. He was arrested later that day and the cocaine, stolen from an evidence locker, was recovered.

Way to blow a carreer.

Merry condolences.

My Hope, and best wishes to the child who was shot in face. He's currently in critical condition, but stable.
My condolences to the family of the man who was beaten to death by two teens in what is beleived to be a racially motivated attack.

Merry Christmas, fair and gun free UK!

"you're giving criminals too much credit"

Here's a CNN story on a drug smuggling tunnel, running underneath the US/Mexican border.

Why am I bringing this up?
Whenever I tell people that criminals will go to great ends to supply the black market whatever it demands, they tend to not fully comprehend exactly how serious these people take that "job".
People who crush up hundredsds or even thousands of pills, preforming lengthy extractions on them to get the PSE out (main precursor for the production of methamphethamine), who rip the striking pads off from just as many matchbooks to get red phosphorous for the recuction are obviously willing to put a lot of work into their criminal schemes, provided that there's money to be made.

This drug bust is no different. Half a million dollars worth of drugs, that's a pretty good incentive to get digging, wouldn't you agree?
All to circumvent prohibition program that's been around for half a century, which has consumed vast amounts of resources, imprisoned and killed people, both criminals and innocent people.

And people try to tell you that criminals wouldn't set up underground gun factories? Sure, most criminals can use a bat or edged weapon equally well as a firearm, but if there's still a demand (gang wars, serious robberies, defending that .5 million worth of drugs from other people, ...), you can bet your buttocks that illegally produced guns would start turning up. Anything from simple break action shotguns to fully automatic submachineguns have been made by unskilled civillians over time, just look at the history of the STEN machine gun if you don't believe me.

An aspiring spree killer deprived of guns could learn how to build explosive devices that are just as likely to kill a large amount of people as a shooting spree would be. And some would think they wouldn't? Deranged nutcases who are dedicated to having their 15 min of glory by killing others before taking their own life, or being killed by the police aren't going to say "gee wiz, I can't get a gun, guess I'll just go have myself commited then".

Stop underestimating thee people, both the professional criminals and the mentally ill.
If you don't, it could come back to haunt you.

Another shooting in a gun-free country.

A 33 year old man was shot to death outside a pub, the BBC reports.

Supposedly following a disturbance insode the pub, I suppose one can safely assume that no long arm was used, but a handgun. Since several shots were fired, I suppose we can rule out derringers and zip-guns as well as a sawn off break action shotgun.

Making malls gun free doesn't mean criminals won't still bring guns in.
Making entire countries quasi gun free doesn't mean criminals won't still bring guns in.

Situational awareness

"With the high presence of criminal prowling about shopping mall parking lots, it's advicable that you stay off your cellphone and stop your MP3 player. Try to stay aware of your surroundings."

This message was brought to you by the Miami Police Grinch buster program.

Also to be noted from the video:
Increased police presence works!

What is an assault weapon?

Few words are disputed as vigorously as the words: "assault weapon"

I was once reading an interview with a police officer, discussing the prevalence of assault weapons, to my surprise, the only firearms he specified were tec-9's (or clones I suppose). This isn't the image I have of assault weapons, but it was his I suppose.

During the federal assault weapons ban, there was a legal definition of an assault weapon. It distinguished between rifles, shotguns and pistols, and no mather how much gun-rights activists shouted that the name "assault weapon" was decieving, or plain wrong, there was a legal definition.

Gun control groups often weren't happy about the definition either. The violence policy center for one, released many documents full of complaints about the firearms industry easely complying with legislation, and removing the features which made their guns assault weapons. Why weren't they happy about that? The AWB didn't so much ban any frames or recievers (the parts legally defined as firearm), it simply prohibited certain confgurations of "furniture", leaving the actual action (internal mechanics) unaltered; while the use of different accesoiries circumvented the ban on specific accesoiries. The weapons were just as dangerous as before.

Now that the AWB has come and gone, there's no federal definition of an "assault weapon" anymore. How shall we define these? The following applies to rifles, short-barreled rifles and shotguns but not submachineguns or handguns. labeling AOW-classified firearms is obviously impossible. Rifle will be interchangeable with "long arm" for the duration of this text, meaning: a long barreled weapon with a stock.

Describing assault rifles on an intuitive level is simple, but this translates poorly into legal proze.
Assault rifles were introduced to allow soldiers to engage treats both at short and extended ranges. The rifle and its cartridge had to be accurate and powerfull enough to pose a lethal threat at up to 200m, but it also had to allow a soldier to engage enemy forces at short distances where cover was scarce, and fast target aquisition and repeated though accurate fire was necessairy.

This translated into weapons which were select fire: single shots for longer ranges, fully automatic or burst fire for shorter distances. Being heavier than the submachineguns used previously and being chambered in intermediary cartridges reduced recoil to the point where fast fire could still be accurate up to 50 yards (which is a lot further then you might think) under combat circumstances.

Let's sum up what we've got so far:

1. accurate, but not match grade
   
2. select fire
3. controllable
4. intermediary cartridge

A lot of people find that there cannot be any civillian assault rifles, because automatic/select fire guns were "banned" back in 1934. But we're trying to define what an assault weapon is ... i.e. : how should the Brady campaign have defined them to achieve their intended goal?
What defines a weapon that is so much more dangerous than say: a traditional hunting rifle?

The original definition included two structural components: Folding or telescoping stocks and pistol grips, do they make a difference?

Folding stocks make gun smaller for storage, but the Nebraska mall shooter had no trouble concealing a rifle with fixed stock, and telescoping stocks don't make a rifle really all that smaller. Simply removing the stock is an option as well, both for storage as for concealment. This isn't so much of an issue.

It's been repeated a lot of times that pistol grips make guns much more controllable, but the light loads used in typical "assault rifle" cartridges don't pose much of a challenge on that front. Keeping the rifle balanced and sights aligned (left hand, up!) is a bigger issue than the recoiling of an "assault rifle" during repeat fire. They do make rifles easier to carry in front of you with the muzzle pointed downwards, rather than lowering the entire rifle and placing the stock underneath the armpit. This may be an issue when hunting, but I do suppose a "spree killer" would keep the muzzle of the gun pointing forwards anyway, and whether he does so with the rifle shouldered, or both hands waist-high, a pistol grip doesn't help at all in that scenario.

Note: firing from the hip is easier without pistol grip, firing with the gun clenched between arm and torso is easier with a pistol grip, and a pistol grip is almost necessairy to fire a gun with a very short stock (like an SMG, not discussed) or no stock (removed or folded)

Pistol grips don't make rifles any more dangerous, or utile to a spree killer, they simply make it more versatile (which is why they are almost standard in military assault rifles)

What does make one rifle more dangerous than another? Impossible to say, almost all types and configuration of rifles have got at least one thing going for them.

Semi-automatic rifles have the advantage of reduced recoil and are eaier to aim during repeat fire. They aren't that fast really, bolt action rifles can have a round rechambered faster than the average person can take aim.
Example in point being the SMLE rifle (WWI). When first used by the Brittish, German soldiers tought they were taking fire from automatic weapons.
Those bolt action rifles tend to be very powerfull and accurate, if somebody with the intention to kill a lot of people would hone his skill with a rifle like this, he could cause some serious damage!

Lever action rifles are often fed by a tube magazine, which doesn't need to be removed to be reloaded, and as opposed to bolt action rifles, can still have a round chambered during the process.
Similar to lever action rifles are pump action shotguns. They can also be reloaded in between shots, and carry the same or greater destructive potential than semi-automatic rifles, especially at short distances. (most spree killing happen in close quarters)

What about the caliber? The intermediary round is one of the cornerstones of the military assault rifle. Light, small but still causes severe injuries due to it's impact dynamics (the 5.56 NATO is notorious for its tumbling upon impact for example)

People have beem killed with almost any caliber of bullet imaginable, any type as well. Low-powered .22's and .25's account for a large portion of all firearms fatalities today. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a fatality rate per caliber.
Gun control groups keep warning us about high power .50 rounds, and a lot of firearm fanatics praise the .338 lapua as being even "better".

I can't definitively determine which caliber is more dangerous than any other, so unfortunatelt, that's out as well.

So here I am, stuck.
What *is* an assault weapon?
Which guns are so much deadlier than others?
and, would there be any point in banning them?

Banning the machineguns that slaughtered people by the hundreds in WWI hasn't prevented todays violent crime, neither did the banning of WWII's SMG's, would it make a difference if we'd ban another piece of "military" equipment? Criminals aren't soldiers after all, they'll strike whenever they have the upper hand in function of the guns they use. Somebody armed with only a bolt action rifle is likely to simply occupy a rooftop across a square, mall or school for example.

This isn't really a valid discussion, so please: stop jacking on about "assault" this and "military" that. You can tacticool it all you want, give it pink furniture or strip it down to bare steel and two spots for holding it, but a gun by any other name can still be used to kill people, as can a knife or piece of plumbing pipe.

Get over it, and focus on the human element will you.

A mutual victory

The NRA and the Brady camapaign agree: it's a good thing that the NICS improvement act has passed!

Hopefully, this will stop at least some mentally ill people from buying guns, and it will allow people who aren't mentally ill, to *do* be able to buy them. That and the proper authorities have been told to stop dragging their feeth.

As the NRA sais: "The end product is a win for American gun owners."

The VPC seems bent on being pessimistic, as always I suppose.
CHEER UP! It is a happy day when legislation is improved!

the need for CCW, illustrated

Gun control proponent often argue against self defence as well as against the right to defensive weapons.
"Just give them what they want" they say.
What if what your assailant want, is to beat the living daylights out of you and possibly kill you, because you are born with a skin color they don't like?

I applaud Hygens Labidou, a man "of color" who is the legal holder of a permit that allows him to carry a concealed weapon, for protecting his life. When two men armed with a lethal weapon approached him in his car, yelled racial slurs and tried to pull him out of his vehicle, he felt threatened and responded by opening fire with his defensive handgun.

One attacker died, the other will stand trial for his crimes as well as the death of his fellow thug, under the statute of hate crime.

Remember how badly the Brady campaign opposed Floridas concealed carry law? How they were screaming about the gunshine state when the right to retreat was repealed? I suppose they'd rather have this man, owner of a small bussiness and (judging by the fact that he has a CCW card) a law abiding citizen, to have been lynched? They'd rather seen him "snuffed out"?

I like what I see: Two violent, racist criminals removed from society. Mr Hygens probably wished all of this had never happened, but the production f an event like this is not within our abilities. Taking action to survive it, should be!

unprecedented trend of knife crime

Tackling knife crime, the highlights:

"laws are pointless if they are not enforced. Without the constant vigilance of police on the streets to apprehend the carriers, purveyors and wielders of knives (or guns, for that matter), no number of Bills before Parliament is likely to have any impact on our increasingly violent streets."
(emphasis mine)


Well, at least they get it

26 and counting ...

26 violent teenage death in the UK this year that is:
A story by the eveing standard:

17 stabbed to death
8 were shot dead
one was beaten to death.

Gun control does not end violence, not even gun violence.

Wolfpack blog responses

It's becoming a common sight, a well known anti gun blogger needs only make a small remark, and he/she will get swamped with replies from gun rights activists such as myself.

This reminds me quite a lot of the WWII era wolfpack tactics employed by U-boats. As soon as an enemy vessel was discovered, the U-boats would start calling in backup over the radio. As soon as a sufficient number had been raised, they would move in in and -despite their individual weakness- they would overwelm the enemy convoy with their combined strength.

The difference? A lot of pro-2A activists are quite well able to fully debunk a post by Paul Helmke, but it's still nice to know we've got the numbers on out side as well :)

Think I'm going to listen to Sabatons "wolfpack" now ...

the CNN poll is in.

Each individual has the right to own a gun, according to 65% off those polled by CNN.
Even 50% of the urbanites, whose ideas about gun ownership are the least liberal of the population thought so as well.

We the poeple!

Three children stabbed, one fatality

Here's the kid whoch raised the count up to 25 teenage fatalities, after being stabbed in a "mass street brawl".
I do suppose one could project a higher number of victims if guns had been present. But just because there weren't didn't prevent at lest one kid from dying.

The solution is never "just" gun control, if you want to tackle violent behavior, you'll need to change the hearts of violent people, because they will kill with any means possible.

Soldiers caught trying to sell guns to criminals

It's not the first time the militairy was found fueling the black market. I've read and written about it before, now again:

It would appear that Brittish troops routinely take guns back with them as trophies. These are not to remain in their personal posession and have to be deactivated. But smuggling live weapons and explosives back from Afghanistan isn't a unique event either, nor is "misplacing" ammonution and trying to sell it off later something that doesn't happen.

One royal marine was found to be in posession of various rifles, at least one AK-74, a rocket propelled grenade and a mortar.
Another one, Christopher Trussler, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment was caught trying to sell issued ammonution and claimed he could also get a re-activated AK-74 ...
The list goes on and can be found here.

If only the police and the military can legally have guns, criminals will still have them as well. A black market will ALWAYS rise to suply the need created by a prohibition; wether it's drugs, underage pornography or firearms.

2007 bloodiest year yet in UK part two

Sharp as a marble dug up a very interesting read concerning the UK:

"Gun scourge on our streets: Nearly 1,000 shot this year"

Despite the outlawing of handguns and clamping down on other firearms in 1997, after the massacre the previous year of 16 school children in Dunblane, the gun menace continues to escalate in the UK. Gun-related murders rose by 6 per cent to 53 in England and Wales, according to official figures for the year ending June 2007.

2007 bloodiest year yet in UK

As far as young victims are concerned that is, with no less than 25 teenage fatalities so far, this year has assumed first place on the macabre pedestal.
Like everybody on my side of the fence predicted: Disarming the general population did not disarm criminals, and people still died.

Unfortunately, the police have not been effective at investigating criminal activity (when they actuallly bother to that is) which has resulted in the population losing faith in them, and feeling scared. 42 percent of all britons fear being victim of gun crime in their disarmed country.

Fearing for their own well-being, witnesses to crimes don't step forward and even more thugs go unpunished. Or as Rev Nims Obunge put it; "more laws were not what was necessary, but rather greater investment in those communities most prone to this type of street violence."

The mother of one of these victims has recently called out to any witnesses to step forward after all.
"Other young boys have died and (have) been murdered and perpetrators are not being punished"

Accidents do happen

It a commen arguement for reacreational shooting that "plinking" is quite a lot safer than playing football. I don't know if this is true or not, but I do recognise that both activities can be risky.

Even a smal caliber target rifle can be lethal, so care must be taken when handeling ALL firearms. Failure to do so may result in the injury or death of a close friend or yourself.
Michael Polchlopek was recently struck in the head when his friend was cleaning a .22 rifle, he is in critical condition according to local6.com .

So please:
Never assume a firearm to be unloaded unless you have just personally cleared the chamber.
Never point the muzzle of a firearm in an unsafe direction, even if you're "sure" it's unloaded.
This is especially important if your gun needs to be dry-fired as part of the dissasembly/cleaning procedure!

Zero tolerance at "work" again.

This time a girl aged 10 was arrested for bringing a knife onto school premises, she had used said knife to cut her lunch and had done so repeadedly in the past.
Even though she had never threatened anybody, she was arrested and taken away to the Juvenile Assessment Center ...

Oh yes, these are the action necesairy to turn schools into safe places where youths can get an education ...

On debating: common pitfalls for supporters of gun control

Jadegold has recently released a string of articles on how to debate with gunloons.
I too was on that side of the fence at a time. Oleg Volk changed that, but I can still build a case in favour of gun control, arbitrairy as that case might be. Today I will at least try tell you what NOT to do.

First of all you should get familliar with the issue. Failure to be familliar with the issue may result in a complete loss of credibility and talking around the issue will not convince anybody. Typical mistakes incorporate using hollywood slang for technical firearm terminology. The most common mistake is using the words magazine and clip as if they were interchangeable. They might be in real life, but not in legislation. Being able to distinguish a revolver from an automatic pistol, knowing the difference between a (semi)automatic or selfloading weapon, and a fully automatic one is the bare minimum.

Knowing what an "assault" weapon is, is another can of worms alltoghether. It's a risky endaveour calling any weapon an assault weapon, so it's best to refer to a a gun by its action (bolt action, semiautomatic, fully automatic, pump action, ...) The Brady campaign originally defined what an assault weapon was, but has over time they have labeled other weapons as assault weapons, even though they were not subject to the assault weapons ban, or would have been if the ban would still have been in effect. To make matters even worse, there are other definitions as well, such as military or corporate designations, as well as other names for the same weapons, and the police might call their own something entirely different still, like patrol rifle (and that is in turn a way of referring to one specific rifle, the FN patrol bolt rifle)

It's easy to get caught up in word games, and somebody who's in contact with firearms on a daily basis is likely to have the advantage over you on that front.

It's very important to realize that the gun rights activists have more statistics to support them that any gun control activist can ever dream up, primarely because gun control means change, and even when statistics only show irrelevance, it supports the arguement that gun control is not needed. Both the Brady campaign and the violence policy center provide a vast amount of statistical data, but like I said: The gun rights groups have more, much more. In the gunfacts file you're likely to find out what's wrong with those numbers. Gun rights activists know these texts all too well, and if you're sitting down on a debating table expecting to baffle your adversairy with numbers, you'll likely have all your arguements turned against you.

To illustrate that: The US is has the best armed civillian population in the entire world, and one of the highest homicide rates as well, there is however no absolute correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, or violent crime rate. So, never say that guns cause crime, you cannot prove that, just like your adversary cannot prove that guns reduce crime. The only way to deal with this issue is to shift the burden of justification, demanding why people insist on keeping arms. This will land you in an arbitrary debate, your wishes versus theirs, a debate without end.

Clear pitfalls:
Never say that there wouldn't be any mass killings without guns, you'll be met by a mention of the Oklahoma city bombing or the mass school stabbing in Japan. Instead say that a lot of people might still be alive today if it weren't for guns. This puts you in the field of tealeaves, becaue we have no way of telling if a killer would have carried through with his plans if there had been no guns at his disposal.

Never blame a specific type of gun or call any gun "better than another". The recent shootings in Nebraska and Colorado have rekindeled the discussion on assault rifles. Cho, the gunman of the VTech massacre didn't use a rifle to be the bloodiest school killer in the history of the US, so don't put the blame for mass shootings with these weapons.

Avoid bringing up other countries that have succesfully implemented gun control legislation, anybody who debated seriously in favor of gun rights will be able to cite several government studies showing that such legislation hasn't made their population any safer.

Don't try to make a case in favor of less than lethal weapons, there has been a string of fatalities tied to such weapons recently. Furthermore, a lot of these weapons are already banned under state law in a lot of places in the US (PAVA capsules for example are illegal in six states). Also, a gun rights activist is likely to expose these as not a valid means of self defence, as well as bringing up the recreational use of guns which isn't replaced by these alternatives either.

Maybe I'll type some more later.
And before you say it, yes I know you see what I did here.

Ma'am, your abusive husband is being released early, care to pick him up?

Not unlike the US of A, the United kingdom has a crime problem. A lot of the criminals who are the cause of this problem commit acts severe enough to be sent to prison, which has resulted in the UK prisons getting seriously overcrowded, which in turn entail a great deal of other problems, including a lot of inmate violence, even incarerated children as young as 15 are exhibiting violent behavior towards eachother and their guards. The UK government is considering to let these guards use violence to protect themselves from these "kids".

So, untill they manage to complete a set of superprisons, they needed a quick-fix patch job solution. Long story short, they decided to start letting people out of jail early and sending less people to jail.

The first problem was obvious, if you're simply releasing people to incarcerate others, the prisons will remain overcrowded hellholes, this is hardly a motivator for rehabilitation.
Secondly: What about those released? The parole officers are swamped with work, and a lot of criminals aren't even referred to the probation service! The obvious consequence:

" We warned the government it would happen and it has. ... there have been a number of occasions where men have returned, violence has been committed and the police have been involved. "

And remember, if these people are victimised again, there's a 39% chance it won't even be investigated!

A precedent for suing the Nebraska mall?

There's been a lot of speculation on whether or not families of the mall shooting victims have grounds to sue the mall. The mall prohibited civillians from carrying firearms on the premises, but one of the first things they did afterwards was remove the "gun free zone" signs. Whether it was for liability reasons or for a sence of black humor (the mall wasn't really gun free after all), the presence of these signs with legal bearing were obviously important to someone.

Sami Barrak got a 26 million dollar settlement from the mall where he was shot. He argued that the mall didn't take adequate measures to protect the safety of its costumers. Would this be a legal precedent to other suits? Mind that this was a settlement, not a court decision, although he was originally awarded more than a hundred million by a jury!

At any rate, it would be an interesting trial to watch.

If not by guns... (12/12/07)

In the UK, lawmakers are setting up to ban cheap imitation swords, after a few incidents where criminals used these to attack other people. This is an issue which dates back to 2005, then came up again in 2006 after criminal incident. They had an "amnesty" program and everything.

Now, guns are made easely enough, but swords? Sure, nobody's gonna figure out a way to get around that ban, not like the average criminal has the finesse of someone back in the dark ages ... no wait ...

Blimey!

Dealing with violent crime in the UK

There's been a couple of people bringing up the UK recently, on "beggars can be choosers" and "the left rudder" to be exact.
So I went looking: how well ARE they doing?

Their prisons could be doing better I suppose, as there's been a little row recently when a prison guard was found involved with a narcotics ring which fueled violence behind bars.
Oh well, you're bound to have at least one prison compromised right?

How's life outside of prison today then?
Without leaving the BBC's site, I could find two reports on violent crime:
A story about an 18 year old getting stabbed to death, and the tale of a senior citizen violently robbed by a gang of thugs ...
Now that's just today, feel free to click the "UK" label underneath this post to read other articles of violence in the UK, and about their failing legal system.

What about the bigger picture, how has the UK been doing as a whole?
At page 48 of the Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005, published by the Home office, we can clearly see that homicide has generally been on the increase since over half a century!
It had declined in 2005, but the use of guns was on the increase despite the gun bans and restrictions. This trend was maintained according to "Crime in England and Wales" (p71) It must be noted that these firearm offences aren't all shootings, there are simply much more punishable actions involving firearms these days.

The UK is not a peaceful place. Even with violent crime as a whole in decline, the amount of people killed or otherwise faced with violence is alarmingly high, and don't let anybody convice you otherwise unless they have the facts to back it up!

Church hero was a police officer for 14 years

According to ABC news, Jeanne Assam, the woman who stopped the Gunman in the Colorado church used to be a law enforcement officer for 14 years.
Important information I'll say!

As sure as a lot of people will refuse to call her a civillian rather than a security guard, a lot of people may refuse to aknowledge her past carreer as a law enforcement officer. Do not be fooled by these people, if you're interested in a subject, be sure to get the facts for yourself.

Another update:
After he was downed by Assams fire, the gunman turned one of his guns on himself and took his own life, according to both ABC, Fox and CNN.
So this death will be added to the annual suicide count.

Right to carry: illustrated

The reason why people carry guns has become painfully clear in the past days when a civillian prevented yet another massacre from taking place by neutralizing the gunman.

Only days after the Nebraska mall shooting, another gunman tried to kill a large amount of people in a church which seated 7000 (!) people. The body count? Two people died.
Unlike Hawkins who killed eight in the mall, or Cho who killed over 30 in VTech, this shooter faced resistance and was taken down.

To diminish the public image of the hero who did this, she's being hailed as a "security guard". She may have had official training in the past, but she wasn't wearing a uniform, she was present because she wanted to be there, with her privately owned defensive firearm and a permit to carry; that's a civillian! Not a police officer or a professional security guard. Not a member of the national -state militia- guard, military or reserve, a genuine card carrying gun owner who undoubdably saved more lives through direct actions than Sarah Brady ever will.

Please read the article by CNSnews, the CNN article I found thanks to thirdpower or take a look at David Codrea's post.

And this isn't the first time gun use has saved lives. Forgive me the shameless NRA plug, the violence policy center isn't too rich on good footage.

Whoever said assault rifles aren't suited for home defence ...

... hasn't tried to break into this guys house:

¨Suspect Dies In Orlando Home Invasion
A victim grabs a rifle and shoots one of burglars¨

Once again, the media fails to report on the type of weapon, which also caused a great deal of confusion in the latest mall shooting.

A rifle? Could be anything from a bolt action hunting rifle, a lever action curiosum or one of those icky black assault killing machines which have no purpose other than mowing down a large amount of people (you know, the kind that police officers are buying to fight crime).
If anybody finds out, drop me a line will ya.

UPDATE:
The rifle used was indeed one of those horrible AK-47-style assault rifles, according to wftv9!

Man shot in the back of his head

"It's horrendous that people still want to use a gun to go out and injure or even kill somebody," said Mr Rodgers in a BBC article.

What do you mean still, since the dark ages?
Yes, one would hope we'd have come further since then, unfortunately, a small minority of us hasn't.

We'll certainly need to find a way to deal with these criminals. Banning guns in an attempt to disarm them hasn't been entirely succesfull or effective, maybe now, the time has come for a new approach.

Turns out it was a WASR 10

The gun used by the murderer in the Nebraska mall this week has been identified as a GP-WASR-10, imported by century arms, according to MSNBC's video (the gunman's weapon)

Mind that this gun takes magazines, not clips, learn the lingo MSNBC.

During the video, they display the stock picture of century arms' rifle. Not a picture of the actual rifle used by the gunman.

Seams to be a troll around ...

Seems? I know not of seems :p

Unfortunately, he ain't no Shakespear. Yuri's also had some encounters.
I'll be keeping comments open untill action is necessairy.

Just so you know: if a comment seems worthless or pointless, it could just be a trolling attempt.

Bradies ommitting the inconvenient

I knew it wouldn't be long ...

So, after the mall shooting in Nebraska, Helmke was quick to make a list of all the mass shootings recently.

All of them? I missed the one were that cop gunned down six defenseless kids at a party, conveniently left out I suppose?
What about the fact that most shootings listed took place in gun free zones, doesn't that deserve a mention? Well, that's not just the Bradies I guess ...

And what is this humbug?
In their press release they say that the gunman (a convicted felon, but no need to mention that)
was able to kill people because he had ¨high-capacity ammunition clips¨? He never reloaded his rifle! He fired twenty something shots, doesn't call for a reload with most SKS's.

(Update: there are conflicting stories detailing exactly how many rounds he fired, the ultinate number may be over 30)
Reminds me off:

Florida officers suspended after brutality

Fox news reports:

You can watch the video for yourself and make your mind up about this case.

City of lights shook by bombing

I'm not exactly a fan of lawyers, but I'm not the kind of guy to send them a bomb in the mail either.

Paris was shook up today when somebody had a bomb delivered to an uptown lawfirm by a courier service. The secretary who opened the package was killed instantly, several other people were injured.

article by USA today

Another mall shooting

I bet there's already people out there using this for politcal gain ...

Oh well, let's get some facts.

First of all: Nine people died you insensitive b*ds, you know if I'm talking to you!

Passing that: The shooter was another person who, stereotypically, was experiencing a great deal of personal problems, having just broken up with his girlfriend and fired from his job.

Hawkins (I'm bracing myself for Jade's post claiming we're related) had a felony conviction and could not legally buy or even own any firearm, according to Fox news which cites records from Sarpy and Washington counties.

There appears to be confusion about the gun used. Both CNN and fox say it was an AK-47 (Illegal under the NFA), they probably mean one of the many look-alikes.
A Fox article also mentions an SKS, which looks remotely like an AK-47, though it opperates differently. An SKS has an affixed magazine and is clip fed, AK-47's and it's clones have a removable magazines zhich feed rounds into the gun. This is also why SKS's were never stamped as assault rifles.

Updates on that last post

The deceased officer was 25, not 21. Law enforcement had a commemorative parade today, a lot of her former classmates attended, many were visibly shocked by the events.

She was indeed struck in the head, her partner in the patrol car was also struck, but not fatally. The criminals' motives are still unknown, but it is suspected that they were planning to steal a truck parked outside of the appartement (they were inside the wrong building for that though)

My gun free Belgium?

A police officer was killed yesterday by a group of criminals. They were burglarising an appartement (which houses amongst others a bank employee, but their motives are unknown at this point) They shot a tenant in the stomach three times, and also shot and killed the 21 year old police officer when she came to the scene.

The weapon used is alledged to be a kalashnikov. This is Europe after all, traditional fully automatic AK-47's and later models are unfortunately available to those willing to break the law.

Police union is complaining that she was on patrol by herself because her "police zone" was a very small one, they're also investigating if the victime, who was supposedly shot in the head with (most likely) steel cored 7.62, was wearing her body armor.

A lot of "alledged" because police hasn't confirmed a lot of information at this point, and there's been no report of any firearm being recovered.

Gun free countries - aren't

Downtime?

My home computer is letting me down, so I may not be able to keep up with my blog (or watching others) for the comming few days.

Me myself into the future? If only.

Gun buyback drains police from streets, and taxpayer money from treasury

The idea is always the same: you allow criminals and ordinary citizens alike to turn in firearms in exchange for money (gift certificates usually), hoping to take crime guns off the streets.

Fox reports of at least one plinker (recreational shooter) who turned in his target pistol because he didn't want it around the house anymore, that's making the streets lot safer I reckon ...
The best little speech came from a fellow gun-rights advocate. It's long been a joke within the gun community that gun buyback programs are little more than a legal fence for criminals to turn in "hot" guns (stolen or used in crime), and a tax refund program for enterprising gun owners/ home gunsmiths.

One Peter Buxtun, a 70-year-old gun advocate, walked away with $300 dollars after turning in two handguns which he calls worthless.
"You can buy junk guns for $10 and then use the gift cards to buy new guns,"
He also stated that he thought the police officers manning the operation had better spend their time patrolling high crime, gang infested neighborhoods.

Current events in the United Kingdom. (12/02/07)

Here an actual violence problem in the UK: Extremely violent children who appeal to their expulsion from school, and win!

The Telegraph reports: Some children get expelled after repeatedly assaulting, beating and even stabbing other pupils and faculty members. The show no consideration for other people's well-being or authority, and have next to no discipline.

When expelled, they apparently sue the school for the right to continue to terrorize students and teachers alike.
Such is life in the UK: You cannot legally/safely defend yourself, the police won't investigate crimes against you in 39% of the cases, and courts will side with the bully who stabbed your child. Criminals who end up in jail are released prematurely, and continue to commit serious crimes. Reading of multiple murders in a days newspaper is no extraordinary feat
(1)(2)(3) and their hunting laws concerning hunting with dogs has appeared to be unenforceable.

Is it any surprise that those people have little to no faith in their police force?
War is Peace?

15 drugdealers arrested

Half a dozen of police departments/law enforcement groups teamed up to score big: they now have a total of twenty-one suspects, fifteen of which are under arrest.
The drugs? A lot of Cocaine, cocaine base (crack) and felony-amounts of marihuana . They also found one (1) gun.

I'm very glad to see law enforcement score big once in a while, the only way this could have been better would be if they'd toppeled a gang of violent criminals. Only one gun, no assault or murder charges ... heck, not even one who resisted arrest, not even resisting arrest without violence ... did they find themselves the cuddliest string of drugrunners, or did they go in so well prepared that they never had a chance?

Guess this works out the best for Law enforcement. I hope justice is served, and that these men will have a shot at rehabilitation. If you're reading this, I'd like to commend all the officers involved in a nice, clean bust. There's no telling how many lifes you may end up saving, taking that coke of the street. (I'm not exactly a big proponent of the current "war on drugs", but I do recognize the horrible damages that drugs like cocaine can cause.)

It's also nice to see one of "our" mantras illustrated:
Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, you have to actually enforce the laws you pass if you want to affect criminals.
All the gun laws on the books didn't save people from Cho at VTech. Another 20 or so people will be shot today by someone other than themselves, the current legislation won't save them, unless we start to enforce it. And until we do, even more gun laws would just gum up the works.

Cops out there, making busts, that's how you stop crime!
That's how you save lifes.

Catch and release in the UK

So, the UK has a violence problem. Maybe not as acute as the US, but it's pretty bad if you keep track of the news over there. Read my selected articles on the UK if you will.

Getting tough on guns got them nowhere, so now they're trying a new approach: letting criminals leave prisons before the end of their sentence. That's right, the country where almost four out of ten crimes aren't even investigated, has prisons so badly overcrowded that have started to release violent criminals, Hundreds of robbers over a thousand burglars and some sex offenders.

When these people are called back to prison for whatever reason, a fifth of them don't even bother showing up again!
There were 2600 early releases in November, that number surpasses only the previous record, of August ...

Freedom is slavery?