Instead of Getting Raped, Shoot the Rapist

There have been some highly publicized incidents where certain police spokesmen advised women not to "dress like sluts" in order to avoid sexual assaults, in effect blaming the victims for enticing criminals. But after an attempted rape in South Carolina park, a local sheriff had some much better advice.

[He] is urging women to get concealed weapons permits and carry guns to protect themselves. ... He suggested that women carry a .45-caliber weapon, and showed reporters at a news conference a fanny pack women could use to carry a handgun while jogging.

The sheriff also noted that a gun is far more effective than mace, and had this to say.

"There won't be any doubt if you need to use your firearm to defend your life," he said. "I don't want this to happen, but I am telling you, I am tired of looking at victims and saying, 'I'm sorry, we've done the best we can to get them in jail.'"

I applaud the sheriff for speaking out on this issue and actually giving advice that could save women from rape or death. I've been saying for years that the best way to prevent rape is to give yourself the ability to respond with lethal force, an action that not only can prevent rape, but might remove rapists from the population permanently.

Rights Infringed

I recently put up a post laughing at the ridiculous notion that requiring identification for voting amounts to vote suppression, or some sort of attack on voting rights. This is accusation is particularly funny coming from Democrats, who in certain states have been in the forefront of suppressing constitutional rights. This is definitely the case in my state of New Jersey.

We had an incident at our house where gas was stolen from one of our vehicles late at night, even though we live in a reasonably nice area. Since I currently work at night, my wife, who is disabled and not that mobile, is home with our son. The thought occurred to me that it would not be good if she were to go outside after hearing some noise, and surprise a criminal. I decided to look into purchasing a handgun, primarily for my wife's protection, and secondarily to take to a range and do some target shooting for family recreation. Although we have various weapons in the house, none of them are of the type that my wife could reasonably take outside just in case. The area is rural, but not rural enough that walking outside with a shotgun wouldn't alarm a neighbor.

After looking into it, I have determined that buying a handgun in New Jersey is probably more trouble than it is worth. Before I can buy anything, I first have to go to my local police station, and submit a detailed form. Among other things, the form requires my employer information, and two references from non-family members. You must also be fingerprinted, pay multiple fees which appear to total at least a hundred dollars, and wait anywhere from one to five months, depending on your local police department and state processing. Separate forms must be filled out for each handgun purchase, each of which requires new fees. There is a blog post here that relates the details of that blogger's experience with buying a handgun in New Jersey.

Since buying handguns out of state is illegal, I will not be getting one without jumping through all those hoops. That's because I don't want to get an illegal weapon, something I doubt criminals are too concerned with. It certainly seems to me that my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is at the very least being "infringed" by all of these requirements. But somehow this must be constitutional. I haven't decided whether or not I'm going to apply to purchase. If I do I will probably post my own experience.

Much Ado About Nothing -- Gun Raffle Edition

The Pima County Republican Party held a raffle in order to raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts. The raffle prize was a Glock 23 pistol. Raffling off guns is fairly common and normally passes without much reaction, except from the more rabid gun-haters. But in this case Pima county happens to be the same one in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Even though deranged lunatic Jared Loughner shot her, many people appear to think the inanimate object, a similar type of Glock handgun was to blame. Since she was shot with a Glock handgun, the Glock brand must be tainted with evil. How dare those Republicans raffle off the same brand? This just proves how evil Republicans are, or at best, that they are totally insensitive jerks.

To those of us who don't assign some sort of taint to brands of inanimate objects because they happened to be used by killers, this is much ado about nothing. From a purely political perspective, the raffle was a bad idea, precisely because this sort of reaction should have been entirely predictable. But that doesn't mean the reaction is justified, or based on anything more than the usual stupidity regarding guns.

Kid Shot for Playing a Prank

There was an ugly incident recently in Kentucky. Apparently a group of kids were going around at night ringing doorbells and then running away, as a prank. But when they approached one man's house, he came out with a shotgun. Despite the fact that they ran away, he proceeded to fire, hitting a 12-year old in the back.

"From the base of skull and jaw beyond his lower back and into his right arm as well," ... "He has 50 pellet wounds. That is only one that was removed during surgery. He is going to be carrying around buckshot for the rest of his life."

Luckily, it looks like he's going to be okay. The reason I'm posting on this story is that it was also picked up by the Huffington Post. Check out the comments. There are a significant amount of people actually defending the shooter, or basically saying that even though he went too far, the kid had it coming.

I'm about as pro-gun and pro-self defense as you can get, but this guy gives gun owners a bad name. I've read multiple accounts of this story and find no information that these kids were doing anything other than ringing doorbells and running away. I don't care how annoying it is, you can't shoot them -- especially when they run from you. There's no defense for this idiot's actions, and it's a travesty that he was released on only 10,000 dollars bail. Someone that would do such a thing is a clear and obvious threat. He's apparently unable to distinguish the difference between an irritating but harmless situation, and one justifying lethal force. What's next, attempting to kill some kid who cuts across his lawn?

Injustice in Oklahoma

Pharmacist Jerome Ersland was given a life sentence for killing an armed robber inside his pharmacy. Details and surveillance video are at the link above, but here's the concise version.

Dramatic surveillance video of the attempted burglary shows Parker and an accomplice running into the pharmacy in the crime-ridden neighborhood and pointing a gun directly at Ersland.

The video then shows Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, firing a pistol at the two men, hitting Parker with one shot that knocked him to the ground.

After chasing Parker's accomplice out of the store, Ersland retrieved a second gun and returned to shoot Parker five more times, 46 seconds after firing the first shot.

Ersland's lawyer told ABC News that the pharmacist saw Parker moving and thought he was still alive, and still a threat."

For that action Ersland was charge with murder and received a life sentence.

In my opinion both the charge and the sentence are complete travesties. According to the article, the entire incident took place in less than a minute. Ersland's reasoning for returning to shoot the wounded criminal is perfectly plausible when you consider the amount of time that had passed. How was he to know that the wounded man wasn't going for his weapon? Was he supposed to just stand there, watch him, and wait to see what he might do?

It would be nice if prosecutors gave the benefit of the doubt to people defending their lives and businesses. Did Ersland overreact in the heat of the moment by finishing off Parker? Maybe. But charging him with murder was uncalled for. At worst he should have been charged with manslaughter, as there were clear mitigating circumstances. A life sentence based on his actions is completely insane. Apparently that sentence was recommended by the jury, but the judge still has to rule.

The judge could suspend part or all of the life term. If he chooses to uphold the jury's full suggestion, Ersland will not be eligible for parole for another 38 years and three months.

Hopefully the judge will be less pro-criminal than the jury and right this injustice.

An Excellent Example of Leftist Irrationality

I believe that most on the left pushing their current meme about the Arizona shooting -- that it was somehow inspired by violent right wing rhetoric and the political climate -- are intellectually dishonest and deliberate engaging in a big lie tactic. But it appears that some are actually dumb enough to believe their own propaganda -- either that or the echo chamber they inhabit makes them oblivious to to their own biased assumptions. I came across this post at the White Coat Underground, which is written by a doctor. From the links it appears that the blogger is a skeptic and possibly an atheist. So I wasn't expecting such a high level of irrationality. Let's consider it point by point.

Sarah Palin jumped the bigotry shark today, and bloggers are trying to explain just how offensive her comments really are.

Others have already explained why Palin's use of "blood libel" was legitimate. It isn't exclusively tied to anti-semitism. But of course this blogger is too clueless and lazy to check his preconceived notions. Smearing political opponents as bigots without evidence is common leftist tactic.

the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and 19 others happened in a particular time and place, and history will look back at this context in trying to understand the event. What Sarah Palin and others in the New Right are arguing is that context is meaningless

I'm not sure what the "New Right" is supposed to be, but no one is arguing that context is meaningless. What people are arguing is that the leftist spin on events is a smear, given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence connecting anyone on the right to that shooting.

that their inflammatory, violent rhetoric is irrelevant

The things that have been cited as violent and inflammatory are neither violent nor inflammatory, but simple, commonly-used metaphors and symbols. And they are irrelevant because they have no connection whatsoever to this particular case.

and that the left is just as bad, which is patently absurd—we hate guns, remember?

The left isn't just as bad, it is worse. As many have already pointed out, there is at least as much violent rhetoric and use of symbols on the left.

Right wing reactionaries use gun rhetoric and Christian imagery and language to speak to their base, including such statements as “don’t retreat, reload”, and posting pictures of “targeted” districts like Rep. Giffords’ with gun sights on them.

Everyone uses those types of metaphors and symbols in political campaigns. This clown has apparently never heard of "targeting" someone for defeat. The idea that saying "reload" is somehow violent when you understand the context is laughable.

Giffords is gunned down by a presumed nut-job who easily purchased a firearm and ammunition, a “right” favored by the New Right.

Owning a firearm is a right favored by the constitution, something not exactly held in much regard on the left. It's also supported by a strong majority of America, something you might not know if you live only on the left-wing fringe.

He drew and fired on her point blank range, rendering idiotic any claims that being personally armed could have helped her.

This guy is on a roll for clueless assertions. There have been numerous times when someone faced an attacker already pointing a gun at them who successfully drew and used his own weapon in self-defense.

He then continues with his false assertions about the term blood libel, which is not just used with regard to the Jews.

Palin, who favors eliminationist rhetoric directed at, in this case, a liberal Jewish Congresswoma

No, actually she doesn't. This is a flat-out lie. She called for her defeat, not her "elimination." It sounds like this guy has been reading too much of Paul Krugman's crazed ranting.

absolves herself of any responsibility for the violence

Maybe because she has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of some lunatic who had nothing to do with her.

for the violence just happens to bear close resemblance to her rhetoric.

Maybe in left wing world where Sarah Palin-hatred dominates over rational thought. In the real world, the violence bears no relationship to anything Palin said. And even if it did, there's no evidence Loughner ever read a single thing by Sarah Palin. But let's just ignore that and smear her anyway.

Part of her reasoning is that it’s just rhetoric, and the guy was a nut.

Because the guy was a nut.

She then claims harm from the rhetoric leveled against her.

Really? I wonder why? Why would someone claim harm from being smeared in connection with violence she had nothing to do with? That's just too difficult for this logically-challenged blogger to understand.

I’m not one to see an anti-Semite behind every door, but this is blatantly anti-Semetic rhetoric, giving a whole new appearance to the attack.

He's not one to see an anti-Semite under ever door but he'll accuse someone of being an anti-Semite based on a supposed misuse of the term blood libel.

The majority of atheists are on the political left, and for many of them, their normal reliance on logic and evidence disappears when it comes to political issues, where they swallow leftist propaganda as if it were revealed truth. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to make it clear that not all atheists willing to speak out on political issues are on the left. When you see the kind of garbage that passes for political analysis at the White Coat Underground, you can understand that while I identify as an atheist and a skeptic, why I don't want to be associated with the left.

Knee-Jerk Feel-Good Legislation

According to the Huffington Post, Representative Peter King (R - NY), will sponsor new legislation involving guns. The proposed law would

make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official ... It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

It's disappointing that such a typical knee-jerk reaction comes from a member of the GOP. No doubt Peter King and others who support such a law are well-aware that it does nothing to prevent the type of incident that occurred in Arizona. Lunatics who stalk and gun down their targets, along with various bystanders, are not exactly noted for obeying laws of any kind. I'm sure if this law had been in place the Arizona killer would have stopped and thought, hey, wait a minute. I can't go shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I'm not allowed to bring a gun within a thousand feet of her. Oh well, I guess I'll have to leave her alone.

This is yet another standard example of a politician responding to the idea that we have to do something, anything, no matter how pointless it might be. If he gets a new law passed he can pretend to have addressed the problem, claim credit for being tough on crime against government officials, and add another talking point to his campaign advertising.

Amazing Stupidity and Intellectual Dishonesty

I know I shouldn't be surprised that a shooting incident has brought forth such an outpouring of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty, but it is surprising in its intensity. Here's what we know so far, from what I've read. The shooter was an unstable individual with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a specific grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That's really all we know for sure. But that hasn't stopped an amazing eruption of complete nonsense, mostly from the left and its enablers in the media. The ridiculous speculation that violent political imagery -- which is nothing new and no more intense than it has been in the past -- is somehow responsible for this incident, is actually being seriously discussed, instead of receiving the derisive laughter it deserves. People seething with intense hatred for Sarah Palin, who know full-well she had no connection whatsoever to this incident, have shamelessly tried to smear her with responsibility. Then there are the usual idiots who pretend that if we just passed another gun law, somehow these incidents could be avoided.

Unless some sort of multi-person conspiracy is unearthed, or a clear motivating ideology, as in the case of radical Islamists, this incident can be best explained by the same explanation that applies to most such one-person shooting sprees: nuts do crazy things. When you have someone whose outlook on life and reality is so out of whack that he's willing to kill a bunch of random people just to get someone he's formed a grudge against, there's no telling what might set him off. The idea, in the absence of any evidence, that he was somehow motivated by a politician or media figure you don't particularly like, even though those figures aren't actually calling for any violence, is utterly ludicrous. I believe most of the people pushing such theories know that, and are just behaving like the intellectually-dishonest hacks they are.

Knife-Wielding Criminals Meet Gun Owner

Right on the heels of my recent post about self-defense shootings in Kansas I happened upon another incident report, this time in Georgia. Two men attempted to rob a man at knifepoint in a parking lot. Unfortunately for them -- particularly for one of them -- their intended victim had a handgun.

a shopper was getting out of his car when he was attacked and held at knifepoint by two male suspects. ... Investigators say he struggled with the two men and was able to fire a weapon, killing Williams. According to the report, the robbery victim told a deputy "This guy tried to rob me and I shot him."

The man was injured during the struggle, but apparently not seriously. He's alive and un-robbed, thanks to the fact that he had a gun handy. Guns get quite a bit of bad publicity any time some nut goes on a shooting spree. But the fact is that guns are also routinely used in self-defense throughout the country. Many of the incidents garner little attention except for a mention in local news sources. And any day some violent criminal picks the wrong victim and ends up in the morgue is a good day in my book.

And here's a note for any pro-criminal apologists who have foolish sympathy for the poor attacker who supposedly didn't deserve to die for just a mere theft attempt... People like the shooter in this incident, and the apartment residents in the other, don't have the luxury of examining their options and trying to assess the motives of criminals. If someone breaks into your house, or grabs you and tries to put a knife to your throat you have to make an immediate decision under tremendous pressure. You don't know whether the criminal is simply going to take your money and go, or whether he's the type that doesn't want to leave any witnesses to his crime. If he's in your house it's even worse, because if you have a family, they are also at risk. In these situations a gun is a tremendous benefit to self-defense. It gives the weaker, the elderly and the outnumbered at least a fighting chance against a potentially lethal criminal, who may himself be armed with a firearm or other weapon. As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact that criminals in America have to fear being shot by their potential victims is a good thing.

Don't Break Into Apartments in Topeka

For the second time this month, a home invader was shot dead by a resident while breaking into a Topeka, Kansas apartment. Each incident was ruled self-defense, and no charges were filed. That's two less criminals roaming the streets and looking for places to rob. There's no telling what might have happened had those apartment residents been unarmed. Unlike in some countries where self-defense is penalized and the populace disarmed, would-be home invaders in the U.S. have to fear being shot. That's a good thing.

Five "Myths" That Aren't Myths at All

The Washington Post has a pro-gun control article up called, "Five myths about gun control." There's a slight problem with it. None of the five points they attack actually qualifies as a myth. Most are at the very least arguments that can be debated one way or another. The article starts off poorly, by calling a factual statement a myth. 

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.Far from being a myth, this oft-repeated slogan is factually correct. Guns are tools. They do not leap out of holsters, or climb down off of walls and kill people. They require a human being to point/aim and pull the trigger. The authors try to argue that the slogan gives rise to misleading ideas. Maybe it does, but it is definitely not a myth.

2. Gun laws affect only law-abiding citizens.This an an argument that points out -- correctly -- that people who obtain guns illegally are already breaking the law, as are those who use guns to commit crimes. Far from being a myth, this statement is substantially correct, in that people who actually follow the law are most affected by gun laws, not people who break the law. Criminals by definition violate the law. The authors make a weak attempt to argue that gun laws have other positive effects at suppressing crime. Again, that may be true, but it doesn't make the statement a myth.

3. When more households have guns for self-defense, crime goes down.This is a debatable point. Naturally the authors claim that their data shows otherwise, but it depends on the study. The statement is not clearly true or false, but depends on all sorts of factors. This makes it a possibly dubious argument, but not a myth.

4. In high-crime urban neighborhoods, guns are as easy to get as fast food.According to the authors, their research in Chicago shows otherwise. Generalizing from some neighborhoods in a single city does not make this statement a myth, except possibly for those specific neighborhoods. The assertion may be a sweeping statement that goes too far, but it may also be substantially correct in some areas as others have argued. Calling it a myth is unjustified and just as much a sweeping overstatement as the original assertion.

5. Repealing Chicago's handgun ban will dramatically increase gun crimes.This is speculation about the future. It may or may not be true, we just don't know until it happens and the results are seen. Calling it a myth is ridiculous.

Protecting Second Amendment Rights

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court could hand down another pro-gun ruling as it considers whether or not Chicago's handgun ban violates the second amendment.

The Supreme Court seemed ready to rule that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that for the first time would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing Second Amendment rights.

I was listening an NPR recap of today's arguments, and they agreed that the court seemed to be leaning in favor of gun rights. The anti-gun New York Times emphasizes that the court is divided, but even its report concedes that the arguments

suggested that the five-justice majority in the 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to keep and bear arms was prepared to take another major step in subjecting gun control laws to constitutional scrutiny.

The main argument of the gun banners seems to be that guns are different because they can be used to harm or kill people. Therefore states can freely ignore the second amendment and regulate guns however they wish. There's an obvious problem with this argument -- it's completely illogical. What is the point of having a right specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, if it can be utterly negated by state action? A right that supposedly only protects individuals against federal government action is no right at all. 

The Chicago handgun ban is a clear violation of the second amendment and should be overturned by the Supreme Court. We already accept that constitutional rights are subject to certain regulations. For example, free assembly doesn't mean you are free to assemble 50,000 people and block traffic in the middle of a major city -- without getting permits and permission. Likewise, even most gun rights advocates recognize that government can regulate aspects of firearms possession. But the key is whether or not regulation is reasonable and justifiable, rather than an attempt to remove the right entirely. A complete ban on handguns, an entire category of the most popular & handy firearm used for self-defense, is not reasonable regulation. It is a sweeping attack on the right to bear arms itself. Hopefully the articles above are correct, and the court will move to protect and expand individual freedom, by striking down Chicago's unconstitutional gun ban.

Excessive Gun Sentences

When we aren't busy filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, we are sending other people to jail for the "crime" of possessing otherwise legal weapons at the wrong place and time. Plaxico Burress was a prime example. He got two years in jail for having a gun accident in public -- an accident in which he himself was the only injured person. But because the incident occurred in New York, instead of a state friendlier to the right to bear arms, he's sitting in jail right now.

The latest high profile case of a celebrity heading to jail over possessing a gun in New York is that of rapper Lil' Wayne. (More on the case here).  He's facing an expected year in jail. A year in jail for what? He apparently had a handgun on his tour bus that was discovered by police while they were searching for -- what else -- drugs. He didn't do anything with the gun. It wasn't stolen, used in a crime, pointed at police, or used in any other way that should justify throwing someone in jail. He simply owned a gun, and didn't have a license to have it in New York. How is that worth a year in jail? Such a procedural offense should be penalized by a moderate fine. 

I'm sure some people look at Plaxico Burress, an arrogant, obnoxious athlete who was stupid enough to shoot himself in the leg, or Lil' Wayne, with all the baggage that comes with the rap scene, and think: it serves them right. Maybe jail will teach them a lesson and knock them down a notch. But the problem is that states like New York, with their ridiculously excessive penalties for gun violations, can turn their wrath against ordinary gun owners. If rich celebrities like rappers and NFL players get thrown in jail for a year or two, what happens to an average person from out of state who drives through New York with his legally purchased weapons, gets stopped, and is found to be in possession of weapons unlicensed and therefore illegal in New York? 

Going Too Far

Normally I'm a big proponent of citizens defending themselves against criminals with lethal force. But a home owner in Detroit went way too far. Tigh Croff's house had be broken into "three times in the last week." It's understandable that he'd be pretty angry when he found two men in his backyard yesterday. But they ran away. He chased after them and one got away. The other one? Well, this is what happened.

The other stopped running, turned around, put his hands up and, according to a police source, taunted the 31-year-old homeowner.

“What are you going to do?” Herbert Silas of Detroit reportedly asked, his hands still in the air. “Shoot me?”

“Absolutely,” Croff told investigators he replied before pulling the trigger, the source said. Silas was hit once in the chest, killing him.

If Silas had been in Croff's house, or possibly even still in his yard, depending on his actions, I'd be defending the shooting, and congratulating Croff on ridding the area of a criminal. But when someone runs away, you can't chase them down and then shoot them because they taunt you. I'm not sure how Croff thought that was a justifiable killing. Silas was unarmed, not acting threatening, and it's not even clear he was a burglar, or had done anything beyond trespassing. Croff went from a man defending his property, to a maniac killing someone for something they said. He's been charged with second-degree murder, and rightly so.

I was unhappy to see that Croff is a licensed gun owner. If you are going to purchase a gun, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the circumstances in which deadly force is justified. I'm not one for blindly following the law. If your life, or the security of your family is threatened, you should err on the side of eliminating the threat, rather than following the letter of the law. But we really don't need gun owners who think it's ok to kill an unarmed, unresisting, unthreatening man outside their property, simply because they've been burglarized in the past, caught someone trespassing, and he dared taunt them.  

Weapons at Presidential Events

A dozen people showed up to protest Obama's VFW speech openly & legally carrying weapons. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and it's good that Arizona has more freedom than some other areas of the country. But at the same time, I'm not sure what these people hope to accomplish.

Armed individuals at a presidential event create an additional security concern for the Secret Service and increase the chances of an unfortunate incident. What if someone makes a move that could be interpreted as a threat? The Secret Service has to err on the side of protecting the president. That could lead to someone getting killed by mistake. In addition, regardless of their actual intent, carrying weapons to a political protest will be interpreted by some as an implied threat, and an attempt to intimidate. It also feeds into left-wing hysteria about the menace of right-wing extremism. All in all, I don't see the upside of armed protesting.

The Second Amendment in Action

Four criminals picked the wrong Harlem shop to rob. As they tried to put plastic cuffs on two employees, beating one who resisted, 72-year old Charles Augusto Jr grabbed his shotgun. He killed one of attackers and mortally wounded the second. The other two were also hit and fled bleeding. Both were found by police and arrested. Augusto, obviously acting in self-defense, was not charged. 

Had Mr. Augusto relied solely on the police for protection, rather than arming himself, at best he and his employees would have been robbed and possibly beaten. At worst he'd be lying dead, after the criminals decided it might be better not to leave witnesses. Fortunately he didn't have to find out what might have happened.

Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

I noticed a story from Pennsylvania today that illustrates one of the benefits of carrying a concealed firearm - staying alive. A man entered a bar seeking vengeance on a bouncer who had thrown him out the night before.  He mistook another patron, Robert Trader, for his target and stabbed him, inflicting a wound that required 18 staples and liver surgery. Unfortunately for the attacker, Trader was carrying a handgun and shot him, stopping the attack. Trader is alive because he had his concealed-carry weapon. His actions were ruled self-defense, and the attacker pled guilty today as part of a plea agreement.

"Assault Weapon" Idiocy

Here we go again with talk of reinstating the so-called "assault weapons" ban. According to ABC News, Attorney General Holder said

putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico

I'm sure drug smugglers are going to be deterred by laws banning an imaginary class of weapons. Plus we all know that criminal Mexican gangs are noted for obeying laws. They won't be able to get the weapons they want illegally. According to the report,

Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades"

That kind of weaponry has absolutely nothing to do with so-called assault weapons, and reviving the ban would have zero effect. Holder is either totally clueless, or he knows this and is just spouting dishonest propaganda in order to generate support for the ban. The main people who would be affected by the ban are law abiding gun owners who use the weapons for target shooting, keep them for self-defense, collect them, or buy them for other legal purposes.

Politicians, many of whom are completely ignorant when it comes to firearms, love to toss around terms like "assault weapons," as if they had actual meaning. There are such things as assault rifles, selective fire weapons capable of fully automatic fire. Civilian ownership of assault rifles is already tightly restricted. There are civilian versions of these rifles, but they are semi-automatic only -- you have to pull the trigger for every shot. They are not machine guns, they do not "spray" bullets, and the main reason they are classed as "assault weapons" by clueless politicians, is that they look like scary military weapons. Despite their appearance, they are functionally equivalent to numerous other semi-automatic rifles. Basically an assault weapon can be anything that a politician thinks it is, which is why calls to revive a ban are so disturbing to anyone who cares about gun rights.

Later on in the article, Holder also calls for banning "cop-killer bullets." What's a cop-killer bullet? Again, they are pretty much what any politician decides they are, since any bullet can kill a cop. Assault weapons are a made-up category of weapons, and cop-killer bullets are their made-up counterpart for ammunition. Allowing politicians to make up terms, label categories of weapons and ammunition with them, and then ban them, is a really bad idea. Unfortunately it's not surprising. No one on the right with any sense believed Obama's promises to respect gun rights.

UPDATE

Nancy Pelosi is not on board with reviving the assault weapons ban. She says she hasn't talked to the administration about it, and thinks we need to focus on enforcing current laws. I rarely have anything good to say about the Speaker of the House, but I'm glad to hear that she seems to be taking a commonsense view of this issue.

Another Look at the Swarm Scenario

I just posted an article about terrorist swarm tactics, and I thought I would post again with a more detailed scenario. Like the expert I referenced earlier, I think this is one of the most difficult types of terrorist attacks to guard against. In fact, I don't think it is possible to prevent them without turning the country into a combination police state/military encampment. The danger of such attacks, and U.S. vulnerability to them, is one of the main reasons why I support offensive efforts outside the U.S. against enemy states and terrorist groups. Playing defense isn't going to work, and involves major civil liberties issues. Consider the following example of a possible terrorist swarm. 

A terrorist group has succeeded in infiltrating 45 highly-trained members into the U.S. They comprise five 9-man teams each located in a different part of the country. Each team has military assault rifles, handguns, grenades, explosive charges and detonators. The terrorist group overseeing the operation has carefully chosen the targets for each team. Each target is in either a small city or a large town, well away from possible military reaction forces or a major police presence. Number 1's target is a college campus, #2 a popular hotel/casino, #3 a large mall, #4 A 200 child daycare facility, and #5 a senior care complex. Each terrorist team will time their strikes to occur simultaneously. During each attack the teams subdivide into three 3-man groups to hit different areas at once and spread maximum panic. For example, team #1 section A will attack the campus police HQ, to kill the police or at least disrupt their response. Section B will attack a crowded auditorium, while Section C invades the freshmen dorms. Each team divides targets in similar fashion. Attacks are supplemented with the detonation of concealed explosive charges that were place immediately prior to the actual attack, if possible. For example, Team #3 could carry them into the mall concealed in shopping bags and simply drop them into a couple trashcans, to be detonated remotely once they start their attack.

Is there any way to prevent such an attack? Yes, if you discover it before it can be initiated. If not, no military response teams, or militarized police units are going to be able to stop it. The best they can do is try to contain the carnage. Barring the lucky presence of police officers in the right place at the right time, armed civilians are about the only chance of stopping an attack once it gets initiated. Consider target #4, the daycare. As with the other teams the terrorists split into three sections. Section A enters the front of the building, Section B the rear, and Section C the outside play area. This is probably the absolute worst target to defend, since most of the occupants are completely helpless small children. But with this type of target, the terrorists will expect no serious resistance. What if one of the teachers held a concealed carry permit and had her weapon on her? Three terrorists burst into the building through the front door shooting, killing children and staff alike. The teacher is not hit in the initial fire, draws her gun and returns fire, killing one terrorist and wounding another. Many of the children and staff are still going to die, but this changes the entire equation. The remaining member of the terrorist section and his wounded comrade have to focus on this threat instead of continuing to kill the helpless. In the confusion and temporary delay of the slaughter, maybe some of the children could flee to safety. Unlikely, yes, but at least there's a small chance. And this is the worst of all five target scenarios.

In a large public area such as a mall, there could conceivably be a few dozen or more armed civilians capable of reacting to an attack. Some of them might even be ex-military or law enforcement. They pose a serious potential threat to this type of terrorist strike, and one that cannot be fully accounted for in terrorist planning. Chances are they won't be able to stop such an attack cold, but they could disrupt it or manage to stop it short of the number of casualties that would otherwise be inflicted. Even one armed civilian who is willing and able to act is a danger to the terrorists. Unarmed civilians on the other hand are basically helpless, and have few good options. When help arrives it will almost certainly be too late for many of them. In my opinion, small-scale terrorist attacks directed at civilians are best countered by the civilians themselves.

Note -- Pure suicide bomber type attacks are even harder to defend against. Unfortunately, they are often identified after they explode, and then its too late.