Thursday, January 31, 2013

Gun-Free does not equal Violence-Free

Another tired meme of the anti-gun folks is that no-one really needs a gun because we have peace officers.

The theory is that since we have this enthusiastic group of folks who dedicate a career to looking for, and dealing with, criminals that we should hand over all responsibility for our individual protection to these folks. In other words: "Only Police and Military Need Guns".


Anyone who sits down and actually thinks about this for a moment can easily see the multiple flaws in this argument, but the primary and biggest flaw is that nobody has their own cop. If you are lucky, there may be one officer for every thousand citizens. If you are Citizen #198 having a Dynamic Interpersonal Episode with Citizen #745, and the cops are busy dealing with Citizen #394 ... well, you're on your own.

Much as I hate Bumper Sticker arguments, the old saw that goes something like: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" really does come into play here.

I see that some of my newer Gentle Readers haven't got their minds wrapped around this concept, so let us indulge -- for the sake of argument -- in a mental exercise.

Let us say that you are in a building literally crawling with peace officers of every stripe; even so far as to posit that there are particular officers who are assigned to the very part of the building you are in. Let us state that this building is the Ultimate Liberal Safe Area: absolutely NO-ONE except for peace officers can have a gun in this building, and there are peace officers around just about every corner.

As part of this hypothesis, you are a woman with an abusive ex-boyfriend. This ex of yours has abused you to the point that you have gone to this building and applied for an Emergency Protective Order.

Long time Gentle Readers of this blog know how I feel about Paper Armour, but I digress.

Anyway, you have put your faith in Society, in the Justice System and the police, and are Doing The Right Thing, the Civilized Thing, in a courtroom, in a Courthouse just brim-full of cops.

Watch this video. Be sure to enlarge it to full-screen, because I wouldn't want you to miss a punch.

Not only were the police minutes away, they were seconds away. Just outside the courtroom door, if I don't miss my guess.

What's the count, Gentle Readers? One grandmother hammered into a wall and five? Six? Eight good punches on the ex-girlfriend?

And that's in the middle of a courthouse full of cops.

Can you imagine this scene just down the street? How many punches before the police arrive -- if they arrive?

Can you imagine this scene after he kicks in the door to her house at two in the morning?

That woman is not as strong as her attacker. Blatant physical fact. She is not as fast, either. In the matter of physical violence she is not his equal ... except when Colonel Colt is with her.

God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal. That goes for women, too.

And when it comes down to brass tacks, the individual is the only person ultimately responsible for his -- or her -- own safety. Part of that responsibility involves being able to defend your own self, with appropriate tools.

Gun control is denying you those tools in exchange for the nebulous assurance that the police will "do their best".

"Doing their best" oft involves putting a toe-tag on your corpse and finding the guy that killed you so that he can plea bargain his way out of an extended sentence, but that's gun control for you.


Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I am happy to report ...

... that my vote was one of many that helped Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz become the junior Senator from the great State of Texas in the last election.

This letter reaffirms my belief that I made the proper choice at the ballot box.

The mental image of a spittle storm impacting the walls of Chicago City Hall brings a tear to my eye and a smile to my lips -- to say nothing of the five minutes of evil snickering as I sit here at the keyboard. The quote:

"In the future, I would ask that you might keep your efforts to diminish the Bill of Rights north of the Red River"

just flat kicked over my giggle-box.

I look forward to many other such jewels from my Senator.


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Thank you

The subject of the post that was here has been handled honourably, and to my complete satisfaction.

Let us not speak of it any further.

Thank you.


Friday, January 25, 2013

A repost

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it. 

 Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.


Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Larry Correia on the Huckabee Show

I've known Larry Correia for ages -- although only on the Internet so far.

He is an articulate and intelligent man, as amply evidenced by his appearance on the Mike Huckabee show:

The referenced blog post can be found here.

I am proud to say that I know Larry Correia.

Well done, sir. Jolly well done.


Saturday, January 19, 2013

A question from a Gentle Reader:

From a Gentle Reader:

"Mr. Dog, I have a question for you. Not being a smartass, I'm truly looking for a more rational response to the Sandy Hook shooting than "arm the teachers", "take away all the AK-47s" or "make it harder to buy and register guns". If I understood the reports correctly, none of those would have helped much. A teacher having a gun and taking a basic firearm safety and usage course doesn't make them a good shot. Frankly, if someone put a gun in my hands my students would be in more danger than whomever I was trying to shoot at, and I'm not alone. (I can aim and shoot a crossbow or a longbow, but a gun? I'm hopeless.) Those weapons were legally owned, registered, and used by Lanza's mother. That her son would steal them, murder her and then to go the elementary school was perhaps predictable, but only in hindsight.

And yet these sorts of atrocities are happening more and more. What is currently being proposed seems like over reaction on both the anti and pro gun sides, but what would you suggest?


The simple and honest answer? These sorts of atrocities are not happening more and more.

The Curry School of Education has a paper up called "School Violence Myths", in which Myth #4 states that school homicides have been trending downwards from a high of 42 in the mid-90s to two in the most current statistics.

Even MSNBC -- no friend to the Second Amendment -- points out that schools assaults have dropped "by nearly half in the past decade". has an article up titled: "Five Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence", with embedded links and video. also has an article up which directly addresses your concern, titled: "Are Mass Shootings Becoming More Common In The United States?" with a very good graph.

Mass shootings are not on the rise, and haven't been for ages. What has changed, however, is the sheer amount of coverage these atrocities are garnering (deliberately, in some cases) leading to the incorrect perception that they are happening more and more.

Which is a whole other post.

Hope that helps,


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

I would like to cordially invite ...

... all of those liberal commentators -- both here and in meat-space -- who have sneeringly and/or patronizingly informed me in the past that President Obama isn't anti-gun:

Pack your bums with salt and go wee up a rope.

Bloody weasels.