In Arizona, Don’t Go Shooting Without a GPS and a Map

Via Classical Values comes this eye-opening story of what can happen if you don’t, as told at World According to Pete. Excerpts:

I only wanted a little physical stimulation and maybe some thrills and a bit of excitement. So my friend, Jimmy, and I went out to the desert to do us a little shooting.

We drove out to the middle of nowhere which, as it turned out, was actually still just inside the city limits of Avondale, AZ. Like anybody can tell the difference out there. I mean, come on… It’s Avondale, for chrissake!

So we’re in a river bottom, picking off some cans and bottles and I’m doing real well.

—

So, like I said, I’m doing real well… until the SWAT team comes over the hill.

Not much crime in Avondale, evidently, as half the force showed up to catch themselves a couple of gun-toting city slickers. They had their assault rifles aimed and pistols drawn just in case, you know, we turned out to be unsavory criminal-types just itching for a fight.

Those would be real “assault rifles” – the selective-fire “bullet hoses” designed to be “spray fired from the hip” and are only good for “killing lots of people in the shortest time possible.”

The ones that only military and police forces can own now. Those assault weapons.

“Spread your arms and get on the ground, or we’ll blow your fucking heads off!”

Now I don’t know about you, but if I had to come up with a list of the “Top Ten Things You Never Want to Hear on a Sunday Afternoon”, that phrase would rank pretty high up on the list.

—

We soon found ourselves in the heart of Avondale proper, in separate holding cells at Police HQ.

At some point, Jimmy later told me he heard two cops talking outside his room and one said to the other, “Neither of these guys have criminal records. What are we suppose to do with them?”

—

A few weeks later, we went to our preliminary hearing. The felony had been knocked down to a misdemeanor before we even walked in the door and both of us were now facing six months in jail or up to $2500 in fines. I told the prosecutor I couldn’t afford a lawyer, so would a public defender be provided? He responded that Avondale only provides one once you go to jail, which told me the city wouldn’t be paying to house and feed us any time soon either, it just wanted money.

—

A court date was set. A month later, we talked to the prosecutor and made a deal. About one fourth of the maximum fine with no jail time. And Jimmy had to forfeit the weapon.

No, they wanted money and the gun.

On the drive home, Jimmy and I passed a billboard for “Shooter’s World”, advertising a big gun sale the following weekend. I suggested to Jimmy that he might want to check it out since he didn’t have a gun anymore. We laughed at my moment of levity and our shared misfortune and marveled at how we had bonded since spending time in the pokey together.

The saying goes, “A good friend will bail you out of jail. A GREAT friend will go to jail with you.”

Read the whole tale. It’s pretty sad.

Gun Rights = Anti-Socialism

Ravenwood reports that, once again, the perpetually panty-twisted are up in arms over another “loophole” in Britain’s ever-more-stringent gun elimination control law (designed to make everyone safer.)

Gun law ‘loophole’

CAMPAIGNERS have called for a “loophole” in the law to be closed after the Manchester Evening News bought a potentially-lethal handgun – legally in a city centre shop.

On the same day new legislation on air guns came into force, we paid £200 ($358!) for a new German-made Walther CP88, a powerful airgun, which could maim or even kill within a distance of 10 metres. (That’s about 30 feet for us Yanks.)

The CO2 gas-powered gun – which is indistinguishable to the untrained eye from a genuine firearm – can fire off eight rounds in quick succession.

OOH! It’s a high-capacity “weapon of mass destruction!”

Bear with me.

Our purchase on Saturday just hours after new controls were introduced by the government.

(Um, that’s not a complete sentence in the English I learned. Poor editing?)

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 made it an offence to manufacture, sell, transfer or acquire air weapons that use a self-contained gas cartridge system to fire pellets.

The WHAT?

It’s anti-social to “manufacture, sell, transfer or acquire air weapons that use a self-contained gas cartridge system to fire pellets”?

Are we using the same language here?

For those of us who really believe that the evil that is socialism is spreading, that one sentence is a great big red flag waving in the wind.

It’s anti-SOCIAL, and the State cannot abide by behavior that is anti-social.

Firearms enthusiasts who already owned one were required to obtain a £50 ($90!) firearms certificate from the police by Friday, April 30.

Anyone now found with one of these guns could be liable to a minimum five-year prison sentence. But the Manchester Evening News has established that some potentially-lethal air guns can still be bought legally without checks or licences.

We bought the CP88 in T Stensby and Co on Shudehill. Their staff acted completely within the law as the .177 air gun falls outside the new legislation.

It is powered by gas cartridges which must be inserted into the handle and which must be replaced on average every 80 shots.

The air guns which are banned under the new law are designed with self-contained gas cartridges, which look like real bullets.

Once again the legislature passed a gun control law. Once again, the refrain from the gun-phobes is “IT’S NOT STRICT ENOUGH!!”

Disgusted

The “loophole” has infuriated anti-gun campaigners Mothers Against Violence, a group set up to fight the gang and gun cultures in south Manchester.

Spokesman Sheila Eccleston, whose son Dean, 24, was shot dead in Longsight on October 9, 2001, said: “I’m absolutely disgusted.

“I would like to see all these guns banned. We go into schools to tell kids about the dangers of the gangs and guns and what message does this give to them?”

It tells them, I would hope, that you’re horribly misguided at a minimum. But it’s nice to see another group come out and vocally advocate what we all know the leadership of the gun control groups here actually want, but dare not voice. (Except the Violence Policy Center – I will give them credit for being forthright about wanting to ban all handguns.)

Paul Kelly, chairman of the Police Federation in Greater Manchester, has called for a ban on the sale of guns like the Walther CP88.

“Anything designed to be an absolute replica should need a licence in the same way as a real firearm,” he said. “And so should any weapon that has working parts and can be converted to accept real bullets.”

As I pointed out before: That would be the license scheme that failed to reduce gun crime? That would be the license scheme that let the government know who owned guns legally but had no effect on those who had them illegally? That would be the license scheme that allowed the government to demand that all legally held handguns be handed in because they were banned? That would be the license scheme that didn’t prevent an increase in handgun-involved crime after the confiscation?

See the cartoon immediately below this piece for a visual representation of the goals of gun control groups. Here’s another sterling example.

Linda Mitchell, spokesman for the Gun Control Network, set up in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, said: “All air weapons are lethal, full stop. They are capable of serious injury and there have been deaths. We really need to see legislation that covers all air weapons.”

Now, shall we look at this engine of death and destruction?

Here’s a standard version:

Yup, looks very much like a real firearm. I can see some cause for concern, seeing as almost no one in England has any real experience with handguns with the exception of the military and police.

And criminals, of course.

Or it could have been the really evil 6″ barreled version with “compensator”:

That would surely make victims wet themselves at its mere appearance.

But here’s the specs on this “powerful airgun, which could maim or even kill” (which, by the way, sells for about $165 here in the States.)

Velocity, 4″ barrel: 380fps.

Velocity, 6″ barrel: 400fps.

If that’s not enough for you, this web page discusses how to wring every last erg of muzzle energy out of the gun. It’s obviously written by a terrorist!

Now, here’s some information on the various horrible projectiles fired by this awesome engine of destruction. The .177 caliber pellet comes in a variety of weights, ranging from about 6.5 grains (0.015 oz) to about 11.5 grains (0.026 oz) Yes, those decimal places are correct. Just to give you an idea, a standard paper clip weighs about 6.6 grains. Obviously the lighter pellets will be faster, the heavier pellets slower. They come in various shapes for different purposes:

The round one is generally known as a “BB” from “ball bearing.”

The size in the image is obviously not to scale. A .177 caliber pellet is (surprise!) 0.177″ in diameter. How big is that? Oh, about the size of the hole in a Cheerio cereal piece. The hole, not the Cheerio.

But a pellet that size, massing about as much as a paper clip, is supposedly lethal out of this infernal engine of mass destruction!

It is true that there have been deaths attributed to airguns, but not pipsqueak air pistols like these. No, the guns involved in fatalities are without exception much more powerful (and usually larger caliber) RIFLES that fire heavier projectiles at velocities in excess of 1,000 feet per second.

And even then it takes either an act of complete idiocy or an act of God to kill somebody with one.

As the commenters at Ravenwood noted, this reminds me of the scene in National Lampoon’s Vacation where Clark pulls a gun to get in to Wally World:

(John Candy) That’s a BB-gun. Are you kidding?

(Chevy Chase) This is a Magnum-PI.

(Candy) That’s an old wives tale Clark. It couldn’t even break the skin.

(Chase) Yeah it could, yeah it could. It could break the skin and start a very ugly infection.

And so could the Walther CP88.

But the English subject must fear these “potentially-lethal air guns” because the press says that it is so!

“England can do it! Australia can do it! WE CAN TOO!”

Not here.

Not if I have anything to say about it.

Thank You!

I do this blog mostly because I feel like I have to. I am unwilling to just give up my rights without a fight, and this site gives me a place to voice my thoughts. But an audience helps.

This blog turns one on Friday, May 14. Today, this morning at 4:41AM in fact, my Sitemeter hit counter rolled over to 100,000 hits. That’s probably what Glenn Reynolds gets on a bad week, but for a site dedicated primarily to the right to arms, I’m very pleased.

Oh, and visitor from medalertambulance.com? Thanks. No grand prizes awarded, though.

This is Blogspot, afterall.

I will give you a tip: Move out of New Jersey!

Call for Assistance

It seems that Tim Lambert objects to the paucity of reports in which victims of crime are further victimized by the system that supposedly is there to protect them.

I’ll admit right up front that my wording “prosecuted” was a poor one. THREATENED with prosecution would be more valid, like in this case found by gunner, the proprietor of No quarters. I’ve perused my archive of articles I’ve saved for the last couple of years and found a few more.

But I’d like the help of the “gullible gunners” out there. Perhaps someone has access to LexisNexis or some similar search engine for news stories? Got your own archive of outrage? Send me links, full text of the stories, whatever. It’s my intent to build a nice case.

Remember, limit this to England and Wales.

Thank you for your assistance.

I Would Be Willing to Go to Jail for Assault

If I ever meet Ted Rall:

A couple of days ago I linked to this Ted Rall column where he actually said some things I agree with. At that time I stated:

I don’t know how much of what Rall states in this piece reflect his actual beliefs and how much of it is a lie, but given Rall’s history…

But it’s damned disconcerting when someone as foul as Rall states opinions I agree with. I feel like I ought to take a shower and scrub with steel wool.

Stainless steel wool and sulfuric acid.

I’m all for the First Amendment.

If I ever meet Rall, I’m going to demostrate my freedom of expression with a knuckle sandwich.

I live in Tucson, Ted. You’ve got my email address. Drop me a line if you’re ever in town. We’ll do lunch.

(Hat tip Instapundit and Michele.)

UPDATE 5/4: Also via Prof. Reynolds, this absolutely astounding dissection of Ted Rall’s mental state by Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom.

If I had written that (thank Jebus I know I’m not capable) I would have showered with acid and steel wool.

Like I Said, Not ALL Brits Have Been Brainwashed

(Via Deltoid, actually.)

Peter Hitchens has written an interesting article, even though he quotes John Lott (whom both I and Tim Lambert believe to be, if not a fraud, at least untrustworthy.) It was originally published in May of last year, but it’s still good. Entitled Why I Demand the Right to Carry a Gun, I’m sure it put some panties in a bunch. Excerpts:

We in Britain believe guns are so dangerous that only criminals should be allowed to have them. If you think this sounds unhinged, you are quite right. But, crazed as it is, such is the thinking behind this country’s current law on firearms.

It is almost impossible for a law-abiding person to obtain or keep a gun, thanks to severe laws diligently enforced by a stern police force. Yet criminals, who care nothing for laws, can and do easily obtain guns and ammunition – which they use with increasing frequency.

All absolutely, demonstrably true.

Not intentional, but certainly the result of the policy.

People in this country get emotional about guns but refuse to think about them. They run, squawking, from the subject as though it were perfectly obvious that the best response to anything that goes ‘bang’ is to ban it.

Those who own or keep guns are treated as only slightly less repellent than child molesters. In a perfect example of this silly frenzy, a Doncaster college lecturer was sacked last January for allowing a student to bring a toy plastic gun into class for use in a photography project.

If we ever did think about the subject, we should realise that something very strange indeed was going on and might begin to worry that we have gone seriously wrong.

But, because of the visceral reaction trained into the public, thinking about the subject has been effectively prevented.

Take a deep breath and consider what follows: I have never owned a gun and hope I never have to, but I want to have the right to do so if I wish – and the right to use a gun in defence of myself and my home. In fact, I do not think that I am a free citizen unless I have these rights.

This is not some wild idea imported from the badlands of North America. Until very recently, these were my rights under the ancient laws of England.

(My emphasis.) If you haven’t, let me suggest that you read the (rather long) exchange I had with an Irishman living in London concerning the right to arms. It covers the history and the law dating back to England. Start here and work your way up through the archives. But do it on the weekend – it’s quite involved.

One more excerpt (though I recommend that you read the whole thing):

Once, police and courts and people all agreed about what was right and what was wrong. In those days, the authorities were more than happy for us to defend ourselves as vigorously as we liked.

Now, while they have effectively abandoned us to the non-existent mercies of anybody who cares to break into our homes, they will punish us fiercely if we lift a finger to defend ourselves.

But, but… self-defense in England is perfectly legal! How could he possibly conclude otherwise?

He’s just a “gullible gunner.”

More Taking Advantage of Fear and Ignorance

Pixy Misa of Ambient Irony exposes another example of gun control supporters folding, twisting, spindling, & mutilating ah, employing misleading statistics in their effort to frighten people into supporting more gun control, this time in Australia.

Money quote:

So how many people are killed by handguns in Australia each year? This handy article in The Age, found in about 10 seconds of Googling, tells us that the number in 2001 was 49.

This represents a drop since tough new restrictions were put in place in 1996, from a 1991 figure of 29.

No, hang on – isn’t 49 more than 29? I could’ve sworn…

(But the philosophy cannot be wrong!)

Jeff Outdoes Himself

Jeff at Alphecca has this week’s Weekly Check on the Bias up, and it starts off with a bang, almost literally.

First, Jeff reviews the a case of a Detroit woman who used her – legally permitted – concealed handgun to defend herself from a gun-wielding attacker:

I mentioned this story last week but thought it deserved mention in this post, firstly, because it is a perfect example of what the right to bear arms is all about and secondly, because — in a break with their usual bias — the Detroit Free Press actually reported this story straight-up, without an anti-gun slant. If you read the full article, I think that you will reach the exact same conclusion that I have: Holland would be dead now if she hadn’t been carrying that firearm.

Here’s the money quote from the article:

Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan’s controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

“The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down,” said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

Not only has it “not occurred,” it never occurs. But it’s ALWAYS PREDICTED. After the fact the best argument opponents can come up with is that supporters cannot conclusively prove that CCW is responsible for crime going down.

Jeff follows this with a “Dial 911 and DIE!” story – from TEXAS. (Doesn’t everybody in Texas own a gun?)

Then he tells us that Jim Purtillo – the guy that moderates the rec.guns newsgroup, and all-around generally great and pro-gun guy, has filed suit against the State of Maryland over just what constitutes “an integrated mechanical safety device” in its badly-worded law that has severely restricted what firearms may be sold in Maryland.

There’s much more. Jeff does a helluva job. Read it weekly, even though it gives you a RCOB™ moment.

UPDATE: Reader Sarah – proving that critical reading skills still exist – points out something that I had glossed over. The quote above from the paper reads:

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings.

Uh, no. That’s not what was predicted at all. What was predicted – and what is always predicted – is “blood in the streets” from shootouts over fender-benders and K-mart blue-light specials. And that NEVER happens.

However, there is a – slight – increase in bad guys getting shot.

Good catch, Sarah. And you’re right: why should it be a bad thing to have a large increase in criminals being shot?