Somebody ALWAYS Beats Me to It.

Publicola dissects an op-ed in the Denver Post by the ironically named Tom Mauser (permalinks bloggered, the post is June 11, 10:02PM). Mr. Mauser lost his son at Columbine, so his bias is at least understandable, but he’s disconnected from reality here. I suppose losing a son explains that, but I don’t forgive him for it.

Anyway, Publicola does a good job dismantling his arguments against the lawsuit protection legislation. Excerpt:

“Imagine a world in which one of its most dangerous products is exempt from consumer-protection laws. Imagine a world in which the makers and sellers of that product are immune from civil lawsuits related to that product.
The first scenario is already the case; the second is close to happening, right here in America.”

Translation: We’re not going to be dealing with much factual information, so let’s try to get used to the make believe world I’m about to describe to you.

Go read.

Oh, and read the post right below that one too. Excellent!

I Think I’LL Vote for Kucinich in the Primary, Too.

I am, after all, registered as a Democrat in Arizona.

ISN’Tapundit has an outstanding fisking of a recent Salon.com column on the “Take Back America” conference. Apparently Dipnut actually paid for the Salon.com “premium” (and I use that term tongue-in-cheek) service so he had access to the entire piece. I don’t, so I won’t link to it here. The link is available on Isntapundit, if you too help support that…site.

Carol Moseley Braun is a taco short of a combination plate, but Kucinich actually has a following, according to this piece. Nowhere has the term “barking moonbat” been more apt.

Bush v. Moonbat Kucinich? Bring it on! (Perhaps Dennis can pick Carol as his running-mate. That would be too perfect.)

Crossbreeding a Llama with a Vacuum Cleaner

James Lileks weighs in today on the “roadmap to genocide,” er, “peace.”

They don’t have helicopters, we’re told, so they use suicide bombers. If they had helicopters, they would have strafed the bus and everyone waiting at the corner. Give them a nation where Hamas runs unchecked, and they’ll have helicopters. They won’t be Apaches. The bill of sale will be calculated in Euros and the manual written in French.

Yup.

He also discusses the local weather, tax rebates, the cycle of life, and crappy hotels in New York. You know, the standard Bleat excellence.

“Guns offer false security” Says a Grad Student

AlphaPatriot sent me this USAToday op-ed by Kimberly Shearer Palmer, hoping, I suspect, that I’d fisk it.

Who am I to let a reader down?

Let’s begin:

Before I held a revolver, I thought only police officers and psychopaths shot guns. Guns seemed uncontrollable objects that could inflict death at any moment; I preferred to avoid them.

Ooh! “police officers and psychopaths!” I ought to drag out the Freud quote.

Then I learned how to shoot. My friends arranged a trip to a shooting range outside Chicago. Our instructor, a former police officer, taught us how to stand and point, hunching our shoulders for accuracy. We shot at the target silhouettes’ heart and lungs before aiming for its head. In real life, our instructor explained, our attackers might wear bulletproof vests.

One of my absolute favorite quotes belongs to blogger and author Teresa Nielsen Hayden: “Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” Seems she discovered the truth of that.

I was thrilled with my new power. A technological advantage now would let me fight the bad guys, even ones bigger and stronger that I am — or so I thought. Guns give women equal killing ability, but they also draw us into the dangerous illusion that owning one makes us safe.

Then her instructor did a piss-poor job of explaining what a gun can and cannot do. Owning a gun doesn’t make you safe. NOTHING makes you “SAFE.”

Owning a fire-extinguisher doesn’t make you safe from fire, either. It simply provides you a tool in the event that one occurs. Just as, in the event of a fire, an extinguisher provides you the means to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property until the fire department arrives, a firearm provides you the means to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property in the event of a crime until the police can arrive. But you have to have more than that. You need to know what the tool can do and cannot do – be it a gun or a fire extinguisher. You have to have it available – keeping it locked up and/or empty or simply where you cannot reach it in an emergency renders it useless. You have to know that you will be able to use it if necessary – if you don’t believe you can, having it won’t do you any good.

There’s more to owning a gun for self-defense than simply purchasing it.

More women are using guns. The number of National Rifle Association Women on Target programs — shooting clinics for women only — more than doubled between 2001 and 2002, says Stephanie Henson, manager of the NRA’s women’s programs. Last year, clinics were held in 38 states. Henson says women’s interest is so strong that the NRA recently launched Woman’s Outlook, its first magazine aimed just at women.

Self-defense is the reason the overwhelming majority of Women & Guns’ readers are interested in using guns, says Peggy Tartaro, the magazine’s executive editor.

Then I hope like hell they’re getting better training than Ms. Palmer got.

But gun popularity among women is based on two misconceptions. First, gun advocates often call guns the great equalizer between men and women. In reality, according to a new study by the University of California at Davis, women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not. While this may be partly explained by the fact that women who fear an attack are more apt to buy a gun, the study shows guns often fail to help women protect themselves.

Perhaps because they don’t understand, as Ms. Palmer does not understand, what having a gun for self-defense requires? Where before she seemed to believe that guns were some kind of magic talisman OF evil, now she seems to believe that they are some kind of magic talisman to WARD OFF evil. They are neither.

“Having a gun gives women a false sense of security,” says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. “Guns can be taken away, and women can be killed by their own guns.”

And Naomi Seligman is an unbiased source of fact, I suppose? How often are “guns taken away” from someone? Approximately 1% of the time. If you have a gun and are prepared to use it, no one’s going to take it from you.

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise “weak” women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Except according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service “(W)hile 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent.” Defending yourself with a gun provides the best chance of escaping injury yourself. A 110 pound woman against a 180 pound man means, even if she gets away, she’s probably going to be injured.

A popular new form of self-defense training simulates attacks on the street and in the bedroom by male “attackers” wearing protective padding. This realistic-training approach includes verbal and psychological elements that prepare women for real-life situations. Fighting off a man in a simulated attack is much more likely to resemble a real incident than shooting at a target-range silhouette.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re going to carry a gun for self-protection, then training for real-life situations is an excellent idea. But that training should not denegrate the advantage that having a gun provides. Consider, if you are about to be assaulted; robbed or carjacked, and your training has prepared you, which is more likely to put off your attacker: a can of pepper spray, or a .38 revolver aimed at his abdomen? And what if he has a firearm? Which is more likely to deter him then?

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back. The course also taught us how to avoid violent situations and how to de-escalate encounters before they become deadly. Like Jennifer Lopez’s character in the 2002 movie Enough, in which she learns to fight to protect herself and her daughter against her abusive husband, we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

More magical thinking. She felt more confident. Yahoo to Jennifer Lopez, but I’d like to remind you that that was a movie. However, we have actual stories like this one where a woman awoke with a man on top of her. She took HIS gun and killed him with it. “In this case, the victim made the decision to struggle and fight back…She made the decision that she was going to survive this incident.”

It’s about mental attitude. A gun is just part of that. More stories:

In December, 2002 in Tucson AZ, Martha Lynn Chaney shot her abusive boyfriend when he tried to force his way into her home. (Story no longer available online)

In March, 2002 in Colville WA, 71 year-old Bethan Scutchfield, an invalid woman, shot and killed a 28 year old man who was physically assaulting her. The man was her granddaughter’s ex-boyfriend who was violating a restraining order.

December 2001, A LaCenter OR woman, Cheryl Swenson, shot her abusive husband when he broke down a bedroom door in order to continue beating her.

The June 11 issue of the Indiana StarPress reports that Charlotte Johnson shot and wounded her ex-boyfriend in self-defense.

WZZM news in Grand Rapids, MI reports that Robin Trumbull used a handgun to defend herself from an attacker.

The March 23 edition of the Macomb Daily online edition reports that a 40 year old woman was the victim of an attempted robbery, but she told the robber: “If you’re going to shoot me then do it, ’cause I’m definitely going to kill you,” when she pulled her 9mm handgun on him. He ran.

Considering guns as women’s only shot at self-defense is like eating fat-free cookies to ward off obesity; they can make the situation even worse. Instead of buying a gun, I’m sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

Try a combination, Ms. Palmer. “Street smarts” and a gun will protect you better than “street smarts” without one. But a gun without “street smarts” is still better than having neither, so long as you’re willing to defend yourself.

It’s Not Justice, But It Could Have Been Worse

Thanks to Kim du Toit, I now know what happened in the case of Ronald Dixon, the Navy vet who shot an intruder in his home. Dixon discovered the intruder in his son’s bedroom. Said intruder had a LONG criminal record.

Dixon was charged for using an unlicensed handgun to defend himself and his family. This was, after all, New York City – where they consider deporting resident aliens who shoot robbers because said alien used an unlicensed handgun while defending his life.

Of course, if you WANT a permit in NYC, it costs a minimum of $329 and takes a minimum of six months to get – unless, of course, you’re politically connected or a celebrity (but I repeat myself.)

In Mr. Dixon’s case, enough people raised enough stink that the prosecutor found it necessary to reduce (but not drop) the charges to “disorderly conduct.” Dixon will, unfortunately, serve three days, but the conviction will not show up on his record. So, supposedly he could still qualify for a permit. But seeing that the number of permits in NYC has been declining, and given the difficulty and expense involved in getting one (especially since Mr. Dixon currently works two jobs) I don’t see how he’s going to have the time.

Now, how about we raise a stink and get Sr. Acosta’s charges reduced to “disorderly conduct.”

And let’s see if we can get some NYC District Attorneys out of office next year.

One other thing: The NY Post editorial called Acosta and others who recently defended themselves in NYC “vigilantes.” Note to NY Post: Use a dictionary. A vigilante is defined as “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily.” What these guys did was self-defense. Let me see if I can clarify the difference. A vigilante is someone like, oh, say Barbara Lipscomb, (AKA Barbara Graham) who shot a young man who she thought was responsible for the death of her son. He wasn’t. But even if he had been, that would have been the act of a vigilante, as per the dictionary definition. But shooting someone who is directly threatening your life and property? That’s called self-defense – not “vilgilantism.”

Oh, and Mrs. Graham/Lipscomb/Martin? She was one of the organizers of the original Million Mom March. And she was supported during her trial by Bernadette Trowell, the President of the MMM organization.

Odd, that.

Real Quick:

The tidal wave of hits from getting Instalaunched seems to have passed. For those of you who decided to hang around like driftwood washed ashore, welcome! I promise to build a bonfire I’ll try to post something worth reading this evening.

In the meantime, read up on Canada’s complete disaster otherwise known as their attempt to register all (legal, honest) gun owners and their firearms.

It seems that they had recent computer crashes that wiped out quite an unknown number of names in the registry. But that’s just the latest in a long series of problems.

Here’s what has happened since May 7:

– The Justice Department revealed it had awarded $400,000 to a gun control coalition last year and the money was used to hire lobbyists to press the government to maintain the program;

I cannot help but wonder if The Brady Center or The Violence Policy Center receives federal dollars. I know that the Centers for Disease Control are using tax dollars to promote gun control as a “health care” topic.

– The former head of the centre said no one was fired at the centre despite Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s claim that people were dismissed or demoted as the costs of the registry soared;

You mean he lied? But, but, he’s a government official!

– It turns out the government had spent at least $17 million more on the firearms registry than the outrageous $1 billion cost cited by Auditor General Sheila Fraser last fall; and

– Ontario announced it will join Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba in refusing to prosecute people who have not registered their guns, leaving the job up to already over-burdened federal prosecutors.

The registry, which was sold to Parliament and the general public on the promise that it would only cost taxpayers $2 million, and then be self-supported from fees. Now, according to this piece, the bill has exceeded the $1 billion that the Auditor General projected. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt – she did say that the accounting was so screwed up and that the information was so hard to drag out of anybody that at best the $1BN was a guess, but she figured it would take until 2005 to hit that mark. It’s only 2003. And estimates are that at least a quarter of Canadian gun owners have not registered. There’s some question as to just how many gun owners there are in Canada, but the government estmates that 500,000 owners have not complied. They have until the end of this month.

On the good side, five of Canada’s provinces have refused to prosecute violators, leaving it up to the federal government to enforce.

But gun control proponents here think, for some reason, that American gun owners would go along with the idea.

Not bleeding likely.

Great, Juuuuust Great…

I get linked by the 800lb gorilla of blogdom, and I’m swamped and unable to post new, gripping, insightful stuff.

Not only do I not have time to blind you with brilliance, I don’t have time to baffle you with bull#^!t.

My posting will be restricted all week, and possibly for some time. Apparently the economy is improving.

Hopefully I be able to get something worthwhile in in the evenings, but I’m not promising much.

To new visitors, please read the “Best Posts.” They might make your visit worthwhile. And remember, this is a new blog. Don’t expect War and Peace.

Thank you for your attention. We now return you to our regular programming.

Mystery Solved

Now I know what it’s like to be linked to by the Blogfather.

YOWZA! Talk about traffic!

Thank you, Professor Reynolds!

UPDATED 6/17/03 because of image server problems

Want to see the power of Instapundit?

I started this blog May 14. On June 2 I won the inaugural New Blog Showcase competition. The evening of June 8 Glenn Reynolds linked to the Chuck Asay cartoon. Here’s the hit trend for the last month:

Nothing further need be said.