Well, I did warn you all earlier this week that blogging would be light. I've been doing my "good deeds" for a couple of local charitable organizations that I donate my "web site" design and maintenance services to. Both are worthy and I feel good about the time I spend trying to help them. Normal blogging should resume Monday morning with my usual "Weekly Check on the Bias" in gun related stories.

In the meantime, some email has come in that I'd like to let you know about.

Earlier this week I gave my thoughts on the most recent debate in Iowa of the Democratic candidates. I mentioned some sympathy for Carol Moseley Braun and got a comment and I also said that I can't consider her because of her gun-control position. I just received this post from an Alphecca friend:

... here is a surprise:

One point of disagreement was over gun control laws in the District. Asked whether they would sign or veto a bill that would allow residents to keep firearms in their homes, only Braun said she would sign it.
link to article

--Jay Fishman

I know that doesn't change her overall anti-gun stance but I thought it was interesting. Thanks, Jay!

---

A new friend to Alphecca, Ryan at SoundFury has two interesting posts up. He likes cafeteria health care plans (I don't, but I don't have time now to go into it.) But he (and follow his links to himself) makes some valid points. And, he explains why Noam Chomsky hasn't paid his dues as a self-proclaimed "dissident." Good blog. Into my blogroll he goes.

---

The Washington Post examines Howard Dean's gun control stance. A fine line indeed. I'll discuss it more on Monday.

---

My New England friend Jay Solo has posts up about his new married status. Included is his first home cooked meal...

---

And don't forget that my buddy Leigh Hanlon continues to provide nightlife coverage of the town of my birth, Chicago.

---

Again, sorry for the light posting and linking. I'm over the hump of outside work and should be back to normal next week. It's currently minus 11 degrees outside. But tomorrow the weather service promises a heatwave high of 3. Remind me again why I live here?

Have a great weekend everyone. Thanks for stopping by!

Because of other obligations I've been really pressed for time this week to post anything but I wanted to bring these two stories to your attention. I'll offer more commentary on them in next week's "Check on the Bias" report.

The usually anti-gun Christian Science Monitor has this story on senior citizens arming themselves. Here's a quote:

In Arizona alone, the state's Department of Public Safety reports that more than 31,000 residents between the ages of 50 and 69 - including 6,200 women - have concealed-weapons permits. It's easy to understand why, says Mr. Batory. "Just read the papers. Older people are getting tired of being picked on by savages."

The Monitor brings up all sorts of concerns about folks in that age range having "dementia" or Alzheimer's in an attempt (no doubt) to tarnish the image of all seniors and get the young liberals to pass gun control laws against older people owning guns. Scare tactics. And the writer also says this:

But the fear of violence that drives seniors to arm themselves may be exaggerated. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 3.4 percent of Americans 65 or older fell victim to violent crime in 2002, down from 9.1 percent in 1973. Regardless, "people become more sensitive to the threat of victimization as they age," says Bryan Byers, a professor of criminal justice at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "The fear of crime eventually outweighs the reality."

Uh, excuse me but 3.4 percent is still almost a million victims! In one year! And to my mind, that's far too many and I support these folks (I'm only about 15 years away from joining AARP) taking their personal protection seriously. What the article doesn't point out is that part of the dramatic drop in crime over the past three decades is because people in this country are starting to arm themselves against the effing mutants out there and the thugs are getting the message. Go for it Granny!

Okay, so I did comment on it...

And in a burst of common sense, the New Mexico Supreme Court let stand the state's new concealed carry law. From the AP:

The five-member court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the law filed by a children's advocacy group and a physician.

"I think this will be a more dangerous place for children and other living beings," David Campbell, the lawyer representing New Mexico Voices for Children, said after the ruling.

Under the law, the Department of Public Safety was authorized to issue concealed-carry licenses as of Jan. 1. Fifteen applications are pending, department spokesman Peter Olson said.

Obviously Campbell is an idiot. Every single state that has passed laws allowing concealed carry in the past two decades has experienced a DROP in crime. New Mexico will become a lot safer because adults will be able to protect children from the sex preditors out there. And from other living things!

...will be lighter than normal over the next few days as I'm finishing up the complete redesign of a web site for a non-profit group I've donated my webmaster time to.

In Monday's Weekly Report I mentioned the editorial lambasting Bush and Ashcroft for not enforcing current gun laws. This of course is nonsense. Here's an example:

For using a handgun to rob a credit union, shoe store and pizza parlor, Wally Martinez was sentenced to 55 years in prison just on the gun violations. It was the longest firearms sentence doled out since U.S. Attorney Paul Warner's office started "Project Safe Neighborhoods" four years ago.

Prosecutors handled 400 of the cases last year, up from 300 indictments the year before, and informants say the word is getting out to felons on the street: Don't mess with firearms.

The story is a testament to the "Project Safe Neighborhoods" program supported by the NRA.

By the way, Say Uncle has more about that original editorial.

---

Kevin at The Smallest Minority has put up a (typically) fine post about concealed carry and the rights of the people. Check it out.

---

And don't forget that there's several good new posts up at The Shooters' Carnival.

Last night New Hampshire Public Television re-broadcast the latest debate between the Democratic candidates for president. Here are a few of my impressions:

They are all starting to look desperate, especially with their attacks on Howard Dean. He was the main focus of their venom.

Dean held his own and he's interesting. I disagree with a few of his positions (not many) but I have yet to find a candidate (in any year) that I agree with 100%. But until he drops this "sucking-up" to the liberal gun-control crowd, I can't pull the lever for him.

Kerry just strikes me as a bully and Ghod but he avoided bringing up Viet Nam until the end when he managed to remind folks he served in the armed forces... about four times in fact.

Joe Leiberman seems pathetic. His main attack on Dean was that the former governor has his records under lock and key. When Dean reasonably stated that he did so to protect such things as "gay citizens who wrote to him during the civil unions debate in Vermont" might not want their identity revealed, Leiberman pouted and said things like "that's not a good answer, I don't accept your answer..." Well Joe, if that whole issue is the best you and your sorry, single-digit campaign can come up with, I don't accept you as a serious candidate. Try coming up with a reason why WE should vote for YOU. Your tantrum yesterday was "chicken-shit."

Gephardt got off some good shots at his opponents and I'm not against all that he has to say, but frankly, his anti-gun stance is impossible and I just can't put someone like that in the Whitehouse.

To be honest, the one I felt the most sympathy for was Carol Moseley Braun. She was rarely given much time to speak and she made some clear and impassioned (even if I don't agree with them) positions. It was almost touching when one of the questioneers asked her why she hadn't spent more time in Iowa and she had to admit that she couldn't afford to because of the modest donations to her campaign. Gun control was not brought up at this debate but I do know she is firmly for as much of it as possible. Alas, that takes her off my list.

Kucinich is the "Jerry Brown" of 2004. Very entertaining...

John Edwards is a trial-lawyer and that's enough not only to not vote for him (civil litigation is destroying this country) but to hope he falls into a ditch.

Folks, there's just nothing here. No substance, no ideas, no innovation. The Democratic candidates are a collective vacuum. I didn't hear anything that motivated me to investigate any of them further. And that's a shame because I don't really like Bush all that much. But for a Second Amendment voter, what's the alternative?

---

Update 1/7/04 comments received:

I heard a short blurb about Dean this morning (didn't hear all of it, so didn't catch the source), and something about it nagged at me during the day, making me think I had read something like it. Just a few minutes ago I realized what it was...

Last week or so, you had a post called "Oh let me help out the leftists!", with the part about Dean blaming Bush for Mad Cow Disease (heh - loved the line about Clinton and the other heifer). There was a quote from Dean that "This just shows the complete lack of foresight...this is something that easily could be predicted and was predicted."

Anyway, the bit I heard on the radio this morning lambasted Dean for doing nothing about security at a nuclear facility in Vermont ("Yankee Nuclear Power Reactor", I think it was called) during his entire tenure as governor. This is despite warnings from state officials, despite investigations that showed it was vulnerable to terrorists, despite actual mock incidents in which the "terrorists" gained access to the facility.

"Physician, heal thyself", as it were.

--Cheers, Ken

And another:

Sooo sorry Carol M-B didn't have enough bread to work over Iowa. Apparently she didn't stash away enough during that Senate junket to Africa with a cast of 300 friends... Carol talks a good game, and writes a good game, thanks to her U. of Chicago education, but she is bad to the core. Her closets look like Imalda Marcos's.

-- Keep bloggin' - L. B. Hughes

Thanks everybody.

So here we are in the New Year and in order to provide my readers with a modicum of continuity in their hectic lives, I shall continue to report on bias against guns in the media and especially on the Yahoo Gun Debate Page.

First of all though, and this is really exciting, the Mars probe Spirit has landed on Mars and is searching for life. It's already sent back some black & white photos but now, here is the first color photo to be received:

I think I detect some life there! Glenn Reynolds wrote about creating a constitution for Martian colonies and if it comes to that, I know he'll include a right to bear arms. Maybe some really big arms. Now I wonder what you folks would use against this bad-boy? (Or is that bat-boy? Too Weekly World News...)

All right, enough of that. I'm sure it will come as a Huge Surprise to most of you that The Washington Post has an editorial decrying the inertia of Congress in enacting, continuing, and expanding more gun control measures including all the usual liberal positions being touted by the Democratic candidates such as the "gun show loophole" and the phony "assault weapons ban." Here's a quote:

The congressional cop-out is that enough laws are on the books already, that they just need stronger enforcement. But laws riddled with provisions that undercut their effectiveness are not enough, nor are there enough uniform federal laws to curb gun trafficking. States with the tightest controls still suffer at the hands of neighboring jurisdictions with loose laws.

Which I guess implies that if this editorial writer had his way, all states -- or the federal government itself -- would have to enact the same draconian gun control measures and regulations that California or Massachusetts has. It would no longer be a state issue but would all be mandated by the government.

And then:

And the gunfire goes on. Without more and better enforcement tools, law authorities can do only so much to protect lives. Turning neighborhoods into armed camps -- with concealed, loaded handguns strapped to the citizenry, and pistols in closets and drawers -- is not the way to go.

Hmmm... I don't know about that; I rather think that is the way to go. Maybe criminals would get the message and start fearing the average citizen instead of the other way around. Thugs might find it better to immigrate to other countries with easier pickings such as England and Australia and soon, Canada.

Meanwhile from the L.A. Times comes an editorial claiming that it wants the Brady Bill NICS system to stay the same. Except that an NRA supported amendment by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan) would require the FBI to purge within 24 hours the records of legal purchases. Currently, the Justice Department retains them for 90 days. Here's a quote:

Supporters of requiring the FBI to purge its records daily, including sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), argue that the measure would protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. By that reasoning, state motor vehicle departments should purge all data relating to licensed drivers.

But driver license information isn't the same. A license can last for 3-4 years and is a "permission" by the state to drive a car. Buying a firearm shouldn't be a permission. It's guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and is reinforced by many state constitutions. For those states that misguidedly do require firearms licenses, yes, those records need to be kept on file if for no other reason then to insure that if a citizen is questioned on his possession of a gun, the state has a record showing that he's "entitled."

The simple act of buying a gun should be subject to the instant Brady check, but if the person "passes" and the transaction is completed, then there is no reason to retain that record at a national level. Someone get's ID'd at a liquar store, they pass and buy the bottle, end of transaction. Why does a record of such need to be kept?

This can all be argued either way but my worry is that 90 days (retention) can easily become a year's retention, or a forever retention. The start of a list that could be used in the future to confiscate all legally held firearms should Democrats get control of Congress and the Whitehouse. In the end, I believe the records should be destroyed as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, the AP gratuitously reported that Britney Spears was on the NRA's "list of enemies." The point of which is... What? I think we've all noticed just how seriously and thoughtfully she takes other areas of her life such as marriage.

Yahoo rarely links to positive stories or op-eds in the press. Fortunately, we do have some allies on our side such as Fox News which just published this commentary by John R. Lott, Jr. about how media bias against guns (and refusing to publish positive defensive stories about their use) stokes the fears of the average person. Here's a quote:

With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.

Exactly. John has made a career of trying to fight this injustice to the pro Second Amendment citizens and others including, in my humble way, myself are doing our smaller part too. By the way, I'm about halfway through his book The Bias against guns and I hope to review it within the next two weeks.

Here's some stuff reported by Keep And Bear Arms.

Is Kansas the next battleground for the right to concealed-carry? From LJWorld.com:

Missouri lawmakers last year passed a concealed-carry law despite a governor's veto, and several Kansas lawmakers said they expected a similar battle this year in Topeka. If such a bill were to pass, it faces a likely veto from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who supports concealed-carry permits only for retired law-enforcement officers.

And:

Opponents include Rep. Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat.

"I think that the best way to fight crime is through other avenues -- treatment and incarceration for the people who need to be incarcerated, good economic policies. ... Those are the ways you fight crime and not by allowing everybody to carry a gun," Davis said.

Oh yes Mr. Davis, except that these "people who need to be incarcerated" won't be until after they've been arrested for committing their mutant crimes. So your child is now dead and NOW we'll stick the "perp" in jail. I'd rather see that thug thwarted during the commission of a crime by a law-abiding citizen able to defend him/herself. Letting folks defend themselves is what concealed-carry is all about. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound as if the liberal governor of Kansas will allow this.

I might point out by the way that this article was simple, to the point, and had quotes from both sides of the issue. If it had been linked by Yahoo I would have rated it neutral. Something the New York Times and Washington Post journalists seem unable to comprehend.

Speaking of bias, in the Oregonian comes this silly editorial claiming that the Bush administration hasn't been enforcing current gun laws. In point of fact, weapons violations under Bush and his AG John Ashcroft are up significantly. Here's a quote:

The Bush administration even has failed to do its part to deliver justice to the victims in the Washington, D.C., sniper case. Yes, John Allen Muhammad is awaiting the death penalty and his young sidekick, Lee Boyd Malvo, will spend life in prison for the murderous spree that claimed 10 lives.

Call me crazy but I suspect that's about as much justice as we can expect in our liberal society. The editorial goes on to admonish the Justice Department for not persuing charges against the Bull's Eye gun shop. I agree with that but it has nothing to do with the real criminals in this case NOT somehow being charged and punished for their mutant crimes.

And because I always like to end this report with a positive story about defensive gun use... From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A clerk at Ann's Market shot Joshua McKenzie, 18, after he pulled a silver handgun Friday night while he and another man were trying to rob the store, police said. Police said McKenzie is expected to survive his injuries. He was to be arraigned yesterday at UPMC Presbyterian hospital, Oakland, on robbery and firearms violation charges.

Hospital officials declined to comment on McKenzie's condition.

Police declined to identify the clerk who shot McKenzie, but said he faces no charges.

That's what it's all about, folks.

I'll be back soon and until then, thanks to all of you for stopping by.

---

Update comment received:

The LA Times editorial which you quote says:

"However, federal law requires the Justice Department to keep those electronic records for 90 days."

I am not so sure - I think that this was just Clinton Administration policy - hardly "federal law."

What the Brady bill does say:

(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.--No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may--
(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

The Brady bill also says:

"(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall--
"(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
"(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
"(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the
call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.

No time frame is given.

The LA Times editorial which you quote also says:

"The Brady bill works and there's no reason to change it."

The Brady bill provided for the handgun purchase waiting period to be replaced by the National Instant Check System, at which time long gun purchases were included. This has now been the case for several years, yet many gun control groups are seeking to reinstate a waiting period on gun purchases.

If the The LA Times truly believes that "the Brady bill works and there's no reason to change it," then will they oppose changing the "Instant Check" provision of the Brady bill to a mandatory waiting period?

--Jay Fishman

Thanks, Jay.
Update 1/7 comment:

If Kansas passes the concealed carry law it will make what, 46 of the 50 states? When legislators are presented with the evidence, these laws go through like greased pigs. More guns, less Crime. Lott said it all in four little words.

Did you notice that Sandra Day O'Connor amended the Constitution all by herself on the campaign finance reform act? Who says it's so hard to amend the Constitution? Just persuade Sandra and you obviate the necessity.

When Madison drafted the second Amerndment it began with the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and then various committees fouled it up with that stuff about militias being necessary...

What I would like to know is what good is it to have unambiguous protections in the Constitution? The Sullivan law has been around for 70 years, and that certainly is in violation of the 2nd Amerndment. Likewise the Brady law.

As far as that's concerned, the Sherman Act should have prevented "industry-wide bargaining" several decades ago. The point is that laws are no good when we haven't the political will to enforce them. The Beck decision is another one. That came down under Bush Sr., I believe, and has yet to be enforced.

--Keep bloggin" - L. B. Hughes

If, and that's a big if, Kansas got concealed carry, I think it would make a total of about 36 states allowing it but even I'm not sure and I'm too lazy busy to look it up this morning...