Here’s an Interesting Quote from a Law Enforcement Officer

From the Rockford Register Star, (Rockford, Illinois)

Cache of weapons found at residence

ROCKTON — A man who shot at the owner of a pizzeria because his pizza was delivered late Sunday was housing a small arsenal.

Police seized 45 handguns, 21 rifles, several hundred rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, two black ski masks and suspected narcotics from Robert Moye’s home Wednesday night.

Yeah, even I would call that a small “arsenal.” But that’s not the money quote. Read on.

The Winnebago County state’s attorney office issued a warrant Thursday for Moye’s arrest, and the Rockton Police Department displayed the impressive haul of mostly military-style assault weapons.

“In 22 years of law enforcement, this is the largest amount of weapons I’ve been involved with,” Rockton Police Chief Steve Dickson said.

Representatives from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Drug Enforcement Administration and an Illinois State Police crime lab technician helped catalog the weapons.

“Very few of these weapons have hunting applications,” said Rockton police officer Ron Dippel, eyeing an Air-15, similar to the military’s M-16 assault rifle. “Home defense. That’s the only reason for having weapons like that.”

Holy s&!t Batman! A COP said that?!?

“The bulletproof vest is particularly disturbing,” Dickson said. “They’re supposed to be hard to get.”

Moye, 45, of 901 Armstrong Ave., owner of Goldie’s Tattoo & Body Piercing parlors in Rockford and Lake Geneva, Wis., was first arrested on a charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm late Sunday for allegedly shooting at Sam’s Pizza owner Tony Pipitone and his cook, Santiago Rivera.

Moye bonded out of jail early Monday. He turned himself in again Thursday night and faces a charge of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.

His new bond was set at $200,000.

Now, this is ILLINOIS, where in order to purchase a gun or ammo you have to have a FIREARM OWNER ID CARD, and this guy is apparently a FELON who has acquired 45 handguns and 21 rifles.

Boy, that Illinois gun control really works, doesn’t it?

Just about as well as the Chicago handgun ban.

But I can’t get over that even cops are now saying (and newspapers reporting!) that military-style semi-auto’s are “Home defense” rifles!

Hillary for President?

Josh at Bushblog (found via Boots and Sabers) has apparently made a scoop. By following the instructions, I went to the Federal Election Commission web page and found this:

Looks like Hill has been doing some planning for her “last minute change of mind,” where she will be “drafted by the people.”

What, I’m supposed to be shocked?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh discovers that the Hillary for Pres movement is the work of one Eric Leondard of “Draft Hillary for President 2004.”

UPDATE #2: Blogger Mr. Mike’s Rumpus Room O’ Science (I don’t make these names up!) took the bit in his teeth so to speak and did some research on his own on this interesting topic. Go read.

As a Follow-Up to the Post Propaganda

…comes this story about a 4-year old who shot and killed his 5 year-old sister and wounded his 7 year-old brother.

The piece is entitled

Gun control laws needed at home

Whether or not you believe in gun control by the government, surely you and everyone else believe in gun control by parents.

Last Saturday in Prince George’s County, Md., two young parents left unattended their four children, ages 4 to 10, and a handgun, a loaded .45 caliber semiautomatic. A boy, age 4, shot and killed his 5-year-old sister and critically wounded his 7-year-old brother, leaving his 10-year-old sister yelling for help.

In Maryland, guns manufactured after Jan. 1 must have built-in trigger locks. This one didn’t. It was loaded and ready for a 4-year-old to grab and pull the trigger. Simple as pie.

And there are over 65 million handguns in circulation without built-in trigger locks. And, I’m sure, of the tens of thousands of guns out there with built-in trigger locks, the vast majority are not locked.

Anyone with half a brain could see that Maryland’s trigger lock law wasn’t about safety, it was about reducing access – because it severely limits the number of handguns that can be legally sold in Maryland. Remember, the gun ban control mantra is “it’s the number of guns that’s the problem.”

Even if a parent had been in the house, it is possible that the 4-year-old might have obtained the gun and fired a few rounds before anyone could intervene.

First, “fired a few rounds????” The kid is FOUR! The author of this peice has obviously never fired a .45. I would imagine that ONE round was fired, killing the sister and wounding the brother. I doubt SERIOUSLY the 4 year-old managed to hang onto the pistol after the first round, I would be amazed if it didn’t jam because he could not hold it properly, and I’m POSITIVE that after firing the first round he would have been scared out of his mind. However, if a parent had been carrying the gun, rather than leaving it lying around, the child would not have had access to it in the first place. But Maryland is a “may-issue” state, which means that unless you’re politically connected or a celebrity you might as well not bother to apply, because they’re not going to give you a permit. Maryland is the state where the Attorney General is a lobbyist for a handgun ban.

However, here you have two parents (Two! Imagine that!) who left the kids unattended. I don’t know about you, but leaving a four year-old and a five year-old in the care of a ten year-old doesn’t strike me as all that bright. Leaving a .45 where a four year-old can get to it doesn’t either. Then again, there was the incident last year in Tennessee where a police officer was shot and killed by his 3 year-old son, so it illustrates that bad judgement can happen even with the responsible and well trained.

Many people feel safer with a loaded gun under a pillow or someplace handy. And some people don’t want safety locks slowing their response times.

IF you have a gun for self-protection, then having it unloaded and/or locked renders it useless. But if you have children you must weigh the odds of needing a firearm for self-protection against the odds of one of the kids getting to a loaded weapon. This means exercising reason and personal responsibility. Something that we seem to be systematically removing from the general public.

But when kids are loose in a house with loaded guns handy, something is far more likely to go horribly wrong than right.

A lot of parents will not let their children visit homes where guns are kept, especially if the guns are not locked away. Neighbors may be offended when asked, “Do you have any guns in the house?” Or, “Do you have any guns that children might reach?” But when a 4-year-old can shoot and kill someone, those are questions worth asking.

You can read the Bill of Rights a thousand different ways without finding any prohibition against parents practicing gun control. Having seen guns in countless movies and TV shows, kids have a general idea how to use them. It is parents’ responsibility to ensure that they never get the chance.

OK, I don’t disagree with the last three paragraphs, but what “gun control laws” are going to prevent this? This was a horrible tragedy. The parents are responsible for the death of one child, the physical injuries of another, and the mental injuries to the whole family. What law can punish them more than this, and not inflict further injuries on the surviving children?

Yes, it’s a tragedy, but it’s a very rare tragedy in a country with nearly 300 million inhabitants.

Another Friday Five

1. What vehicle do you drive?

A 1999 Ford Ranger supercab step-side 4×4

2. How long have you had it?

Since March of 1999 (I ordered it just the way I wanted it.)

3. What is the coolest feature on your vehicle?

The 4WD, of course. And I use it, too, but the half-doors allowing access to the area behind the seats are a close second.

4. What is the most annoying thing about your vehicle?

Lack of power. It has the 4.0L V-6, but I traded in an ’88 5.0L Mustang on it, and I miss the POWER!!

5. If money were no object, what vehicle would you be driving right now?

Probably this:

The Porsche (that’s pronounced “por-sha”, not “porsh”) 911 Carrera 4S. It’s been described as “an appliance for going fast.” Three-hundred twenty horsepower, all-wheel drive, 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and reliable as an anvil. Stickers at $81,800. And it gets about the same mileage as my pickup.

I’ve always loved the 911.

Propaganda

noun: Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause

Yes, I’m aware that it’s done on both sides of this issue, but some of it is so blatant and amateurish it really shocks me that they do it. Take for example this October 2002 press release from Commonsense about Kids and Guns (it’s a Word file):

Kennedy: Still Too Many Preventable Gun Accidents and Suicides

New Data Shows 58% Increase in Accidental Shootings of Small Children

Washington, DC — Gun accidents and suicides took the lives of 1,200 children and teens**, plus an additional 18,358 kids 0-19 years-old were injured by a firearm and 1,776 were killed in homicides, according to new mortality and injury data released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the year 2000.

These findings were reported by Victoria Reggie Kennedy, president of the nonpartisan group Common Sense about Kids and Guns, on the three-year anniversary of the group’s founding.

“The reality is that many of these accidents, suicides, and injuries were preventable, if only the firearm in question had been properly stored: unloaded and locked,” stated Kennedy, quoting two of the six safety tips of her non-profit group.

“Common Sense about Kids and Guns is encouraged that overall rates of gun deaths have declined for the sixth straight year,” said Kennedy. “We applaud the responsible adults who followed our Common Sense Safety Tips and assured that no child or teen encountered a loaded or improperly stored firearm in their home.”

“But there is still more that needs to be done: among 0-4 year olds, accidental shootings actually increased a startling 58%!” declared Kennedy. “This is simply tragic. We must take personal responsibility to make certain guns are inaccessible to these very young children.”

“Without any exaggeration, the way a gun is stored can be a matter of life and death for our children,” Kennedy said. “Studies show that approximately 75% of all firearm-related accidents and suicides involving children and teens, and many homicides, are committed with a firearm found at home, or the home of a relative or friend.”

At the heart of the Common Sense about Kids and Guns message is parental responsibility. “A responsible adult cannot rely on a child or teenager not to touch a gun, merely because they have been told not to do so,” continued Kennedy. “It is impossible to predict what children, teenagers, and their friends will do, and the risks of mishandling a gun are too great to place the burden of responsibility on anyone other the adult bringing the gun into the home.”

Common Sense about Kids and Guns has developed six simple safety tips that have been endorsed by organizations from the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to the National Shooting Sport Foundation to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Whether or not someone decides to keep a gun
at home, Common Sense urges all adults to follow these steps to protect kids from gun deaths and injuries:

All gun owners must:
1) unload and lock up their guns;
2) lock and store ammunition separately; and
3) keep keys and combinations where kids are unable to find them.
All parents must:
4) ask if guns are safely stored at places their kids visit or play;
5) talk with their kids about guns; and
6) teach young children not to touch guns and to tell an adult if they find one.

“There are still many complex issues that lead to gun violence in our society – issues that we must address in a serious way,” concluded Kennedy. “But right now, if adults act responsibly and follow these six simple steps, we can continue to reduce the number of tragedies involving kids and guns. And remember, the child you save may be your own.”

Now, I don’t have a lot of problems with this piece.* The facts are actually factual, and the suggestions recommendations demands listed at the bottom aren’t really out of line (except I’ll decide whether to keep a firearm loaded in my house. It’s my responsibilty to make sure that the kids in my house don’t have access to one.) But let’s look at the part I highlighted, the 58% increase!

Damn if that’s not a scary number!

It’s propaganda – see definition above.

It is, indeed, factual. If you look at the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS tools it will tell you that in 2000 there were nineteen (19) children between the ages of 0 and 4 who died by unintentional gunshot, and that was indeed a 58% increase over 1999’s twelve (12).

But I somehow doubt that Commonsense reported on the 37% decrease between 1998 and 1999, when the number went from NINETEEN to twelve. Or the 50% decrease between 1994 and 1996 when the number went from thirty-four (34!) to seventeen (17).

The fact is that over the period between 1995 and 2000 the average has hovered about 20 per year.

Yes, that’s too many. Yes it’s tragic. Yes, it’s almost entirely due to irresponsible parents who left guns where someone (not always a toddler) could get to them.

But how about some perspective?

What about the 46 children from 0 to 4 years old who died by accidental poisoning in 2000?

Or the 44 who died in falls?

Or the 568 who drowned?

Where are the people urging legislation to stop these deaths due to irresponsible parents?

NOTE: The organization Commonsense about Kids and Guns is not a lobbying body. It restricts itself to “advocat(ing) personal action, rather than government action, in ending gun deaths” as commenter Mays succinctly put it. At least I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.

It was not my intention to suggest that Commonsense was another Violence Policy Center or Brady Campaign, but on reflection it certainly could appear that way (and understandably, given my obvious, stated bias), and I apologize if it was so interpreted. (But this does point out the difference between intentionally misleading someone and accidentally doing so.)

*I take issue with the idea that teen suicides would be affected, but that’s another topic.

**See this piece for commentary on the combining of accident and suicide statistics to ensure scary numbers.

Publicola Has Another Excellent Post Up

Here.

Excerpt:

I feel there’s a 3 part equation necessary for a people to remain free when confronted with a tyrannical or generally oppressive government. A people need the Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist. A properly educated should have the Knowledge. This should also go a ways towards imparting the Will. & if these two things are in place then they will guard the Means jealously.

What is happening here is an effort to eliminate the education necessary to support the desired result of the equation: a free people. By downplaying & eliminating organized shooting sports it sends a message that it is no longer necessary to be concerned with those things. It cuts off a valuable supply line of information & experience.

What we need to do is to encourage as many as possible to try some of these shooting sports, such as High Power Rifle. By getting people involved we do two things: create a self interest in the preservation of our Right to Arms & form a solid base of trained individuals should we ever have to defend our Right to Arms or any other Right from foreign or domestic enemies.

Go read it all, and the links.

In Other News, What a Great Day!

Kim du Toit reports that Anheuser-Busch has withdrawn support for Missouri Gov. Bob Holden over his (overridden) veto of concealed-carry legislation, and Instapundit reports that the Centers for Disease control has released a report finding “no conclusive evidence that gun control laws help to prevent violent crime, suicides and accidental injuries in the United States.”

My favorite quotation from the article:

There are an estimated 200 million privately held rifles, handguns and other firearms in the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms in its constitution.

Halleluja! (I wonder why Reuters didn’t use the UN’s significantly higher estimate of arms, but the admission that the Constitution guarantees a right to arms is a shocking admission from them.)

Least favorite quotation:

The CDC, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is prohibited from using funds to promote gun control. HHS, however, is determined to reduce the rate of firearms-related deaths by about two-thirds by 2010.

Two-thirds of what? Two thirds of what it is now? What it was in 1994? What? And how does HHS (Health and Human Services) propose to go about it?

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports on this story here. Money quote:

Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.

What else is new?

Here’s the link to the study:

On the other side of the blotter, however, it appears that John “More Guns, Less Crime” Lott is in for a rough time. Several people are calling for a review panel to determine if academic fraud has occurred. Instapundit has a post concerning the Lott controversy, and there are several at the Volokh Conspiracy, plus Mark Kleiman comments. Throughout this whole thing, Tim Lambert has played the role Clayton Cramer did in the Bellesile’s “Arming America” affair, and he’s not happy with Clayton’s response in this one.

I first commented on the Lott controversy here.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer comments on the Lott attackers, and makes some good points.

Unfortunately, defenders of Bellesiles made similar points (though considerably less factually accurate) about his attackers – until James Lindgren, a verifiably neutral party weighed in. And Lindgren is questioning Lott as well.

Just because Lott is being attacked by gun ban control proponents doesn’t mean he hasn’t played fast and loose with the facts.

We Don’t Sit at Separate Lunch Counters (Yet) but Google Doesn’t Want to Associate With Us

I belong to the Tucson Rifle Club. In fact, I’m a Board Member (Pistol Director) and a Match Director (IHMSA), so I get all the mailings from the Board members. It was brought to the attention of one of our members that Google, the internet search giant, wouldn’t accept advertising from gun-related businesses or organizations. So he thought he’d see what they’d do with one from a public shooting range. Here’s the unedited transcript of the e-mail exchange, TRC’s in blue, Google’s in red. The site webmaster attempted to enroll the TRC in the Google AdSense service. The exchange begins with Google’s rejection notice:

At 09:20 AM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense Support wrote:

Hello Tucson Rifle Club,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your

application, our program specialists have found that the website

currently associated with your account does not comply with our

policies. Therefore, we’re unable to accept you into Google AdSense at

this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If

you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this

email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.

Issues:

– Unacceptable site content

———————

Further detail:

Unacceptable site content: Your website contains content that we do

not allow at this time. Please review our policies

(https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) for a complete list of site

content not allowed on web pages.

———————

For a complete list of AdSense criteria, please visit:

https://www.google.com/adsense/policies

https://www.google.com/adsense/terms

If you would like to submit another website for consideration, simply

reply to this email and provide us with the URL. If this new website

complies with our program policies, we will help you start delivering

AdWords ads in minutes.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you have any

questions.

Regards,

The Google Team

To which our webmaster replied:

From: John Luiten

Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:09:38 -0700

I have reviewed your policies page once again and find nothing stated

therein that pertains to our website, “www.tucsonrifleclub.org“. Our

organization is a State sanctioned body (Arizona Department of Game & Fish)

that provides shooting range facilities to thousands of residents in the

Southern Arizona region. We have been doing so since 1895.

We also provide significant support to the local law enforcement community as well.

Would you please be specific as to which of the following of your posted

site content rules you consider our site in violation of:

“Site may not include:

Excessive profanity

Hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual,

group, or organization

Hacking/cracking content

Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia

Pornography, adult, or mature content

Gambling or casino-related content

Excessive advertising

Pop-ups that interfere with site navigation or are for downloads”

Regards,

–John Luiten, Webmaster

Tucson Rifle Club

And Google promptly responded:

At 05:59 PM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense wrote:

Hello John,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. Our program specialists

review all websites for a variety of criteria. These include, but are not

limited to, site content, clear navigation, and the site’s potential value

to the AdSense program and the user experience.

During our review of your site, we have found content that strictly deals

with firearms and ammunition
and many of the ads that would appear on your

site would not be relevant to your site’s content. As the ads would not

provide a valuable experience for your site’s users or our advertisers, we

feel that your site isn’t a good fit for the AdSense program at this time.

Please feel free to reply to this email with any further questions. If you

manage or own another site on which you’d like to display AdWords ads, you

may reply to this email and include the URL in the message. We will then

reconsider your application. If the new site complies with our program

policies and is a fit for the AdSense program, we’ll approve your

application and allow you to run ads on that specific site.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

(My emphasis) Dr. Luiten, not being one to take idiocy laying down, responded:

09/30/2003 11:05AM

Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status

Thank you for your prompt response. I am beginning to understand your

decision making process a bit better.

As I view the process, you would seem to have two sets of rejection

criteria: one published and one internal. In this case, your internal

rejection criteria is for sites dealing in “firearms and ammunition”, or

perhaps better stated, “firearms” since there is no reference to

“ammunition” that I can find on our site pages.

You further state that, “many of the ads that would appear on your site

would not be relevant to your site’s content.” What has this to with

advertising to potential customers? We are not looking to your service to

augment the firearm related content of our site, but as a service to our

viewers.

There are over 80 million firearm owners in the United States of America.

Firearm owners live in every state and community in this nation. We drive

cars, shop in grocery stores, eat at restaurants. You have no advertisers

currently subscribed in these areas?

Like it or not, we are your neighbors.

But perhaps you are looking for an advertising edge. A specificity in your

subscriber base to promote to potential advertisers? Then you are allowing

you biases to deprive yourself of an excellent marketing

opportunity. Tucson Rifle Club members compose a disproportionate share of

Southern Arizona’s campers, hikers, hunters, and outdoorsmen of all

types. Surely large companies specializing in sporting goods and clothing

(e.g., Cabela’s, LL Bean, Eddie Bauer) would look favorably upon reaching

such an audience?

What first led me to your AdSense service was an advertising strip of yours

on a car hobbyist website. Although several of the ad’s you listed there

referred to the specific model car this site promotes, many did

not. Indeed, they advertised “brake Jobs”, “mufflers”, “oil filters” and

the like. We may be located in the West, but I can assure you, we stopped

riding horses to the range some time ago. Are ad’s for car accessories,

especially those pertaining to OHV’s, also not relevant to our site

viewers?

I ask you to reconsider your prohibition against “firearm” related websites

(and I assume advertisers) in light of what it is, simple prejudice. Your

policy is short-sighted, exclusionary, and when it becomes known to the

general public will prove ultimately detrimental to your business goals.

Respectfully,

–John Luiten, Webmaster

Tucson Rifle Club

As of yet there has been no further response from Google, but if there is, rest assured I’ll keep you informed.

These are GOOD!

Robert Ariail, editorial cartoonist for the The State (S.C.) has a few recent cartoons that are excellent:

He has a new book out, too: ARIAIL!!, and an earlier collection, Ariail Attack!

The Blogging Kevins Will Appreciate This

They named a gun after us.

Perhaps embarrassingly, a pocket pistol.

I give you – The Kevin:

It’s a .380 blow-back manufactured in the Czech Republic (and probably not importable because of the BATFE’s “Saturday Night Special” rules,) 6-round magazine capacity, DAO.

And it looks like it’d hurt to shoot.

(Would it have been too much to ask for something chambered in .45ACP?)

Get this: What else does the manufacturer make? 12.7mm (about .50 caliber) SNIPER RIFLES. Named “Falcon.”

Yeah, right. Mouse gun = “Kevin”

.50 caliber long range boomer = “Falcon”

There’s no justice.