I am glad that all of you have taken time to visit me and I hope you will again. I'll be back on Monday morning with my "Weekly report" and I look forward to hearing from you.

Have a great weekend, everyone, and thanks for stopping by!

Hey, Say Uncle has a great post about proposed legislation concerning "puppy mills" and the like. As he wisely points out, such nonsense will never prevent much of the abuse in the puppy (and kitten) arena. Anyway, go read this post and put up your comments. I am a firm believer that while humans are usually capable of defending themselves, children -- and pets -- can't. They need protection but the bill before Congress is not the right one. As usual, Say Uncle is right on target.

---

Rise of the Common Man has become one of my favorite new blogs. He is quite adept at "fisking" the idiots among us. Here's a good example as he takes on the (UK) Guardian.

---

Greg at the Hobbesian Conservative is another. Just go there and enjoy and give him some support.

---

James at Hell in a Handbasket shares the same sense of wonder that I do. May I just recommend Dr. Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars. You can buy it almost everywhere and he has the whole, affordable plan to colonize Mars mapped out.

By the way, Jame's Hell in a Handbasket should be on all of your daily reading lists.

---

In case you've noticed..., there have been no cat pictures here this week because Acidman has been on vacation. They will return next week when he does...

Today is the start of a week off from work for me -- a rarity -- but I have a lot of vacation time built-up and it's (as you regulars know) been over two years since I've taken any significant time off from work (and in the year plus, from Alphecca) and I'm finally getting a chance to kick-back. And I really needed the time off. It's nice to face seven days I can sleep late and be a slob (well, bigger slob.) But nothing will deter me from blogging. Unlike some big names who rake-in huge piles of money and then take a week or a month off, I just keep on going. But any and all donations to the cause (or just because you like me) would certainly be welcome -- I haven't had any contributions in a month...

Anyway, last month my friend David at Sketches of Strain very flatteringly interviewed me. I use the term flattering in the sense that I couldn't believe that someone would want to interview me. After all, I'm rather small potatoes in the blogosphere and I rant almost incoherently much of the time. But he did and I took it very seriously and tried to answer his questions in an in-depth way.

A gay-guy who likes guns is not that common. And I'm conservative on many issues -- not all -- and that makes me somewhat unusual as well. By the way, I consider Sketches of Strain to be a "must read."

But there are others like me -- see my blogroll -- such as Mike Silverman and Eric Scheie and Michael at Discount Blogger. And there are others on that list. Not all of us "queers" march lock-step with the leftist-liberals and gay-rights organizations. Some of us love our country, love the Bill of Rights, and love being free-thinkers who refuse to become stereotypes of gay "culture."

Now, another "blog" friend of mine, Dean Esmay has kindly (flatteringly) decided to interview me and I will be spending much of this weekend answering his questions and follow-ups. I consider this an honor. I am not worthy but I will try to be as clear and honest as I can. Dean is another of these wonderfully smart bloggers who are so much better at it than I am that I'm astounded that he even notices me. He was always a "bookmark" in my browser even before he linked to me. Dean should be one in yours too. I won't tell you what the questions are because that's his "exclusive" but they do challenge my "gay quotient" and I will give very honest replies. I'll put up a link here when the interview is up on his fine blog.

Lastly, tomorrow I will be preparing my Monday "Weekly Report" and I'd like to remind you all that if you have local newspaper links you'd like me to mention or critique then please email them to me. And if you don't have your own blog but have some digital hunting pics you are proud of, send them to me also and I'll try to post some of them in the report as well.

Don at Anger Management has made a list of the qualities he's looking for in a woman. I have to say that I agree with most of them but I'm looking for those qualities in a man. Just a subtle (as a train-wreck) reminder that I'm still single...

Speaking of finding someone special, Jay Solo is looking at wedding-rings! What's up with that, Jay? Something you'd like to tell us? Finally quitting the single's life? Fess up!

---

Has Justin at Elephant Rants finally revealed his true identity? And shouldn't Lois be standing by her man and pushing his chair?

Which reminds me that the Inscrutable American still, after all these months, has not revealed his.

---

Okay, I shouldn't use an expression like "woman driver" but Ozguru at GDay Mate has and posted some humerous photos here and here.

Granted, Ozguru isn't exactly around town, more like around the world but it's a small world after all or some such tune...

---

I know Mog would never drive like that. And with that clever segue I can point to her cat horror story titled, "Jealousy Reared It's Ugly Leg" (link doesn't seem to work yet.) And check out her "Psycho" photo on the sidebar in honor of Halloween.

---

Speaking of which, Kelley at Suburban Blight has a bunch of Halloween stories up so just start scrolling and reading...

---

I'm off today and I suspect I'll be doing a bit of blogging here so check back now and then...

I know that these days much of the chattering left bemoans that prison is an awful and harsh thing to inflict on people because those books and cable TV and gyms and three-square-a-day really takes a toll on the mutants incarcerated within them.

Now, I personally think our prisons should be unpleasant experiences -- nasty enough to make criminals think twice (if they're capable of thinking) about embarking on a life of crime.

Certainly I don't want "low level" crimes punished with such harshness -- I don't think drug users or minor pushers or drunks or financial criminals or prostitutes should be subject to that. I don't think most of them should even be in jail to begin with.

But real crime -- armed robbery, child abuse, rape, murder -- needs to be dealt with swiftly and surely and with nasty consequences for the criminal.

When I say murder, there's the regrettable crimes of jealousy or passion. These are not forgivable but they can sometimes be at least understood. They still have to be punished to be deterred...

But then there are some criminals who are so grotesque and horrible and incorrigible that we need something more: We need to bring back Devil's Island. Because on this Halloween it's important to remember that some of folks walking around today really are ghouls. From the Boston Globe:

SEATTLE -- The man suspected of being the Green River Killer has agreed to plead guilty next week to the murders of 48 women in a deal that would spare him from execution, a person involved in the case told The Associated Press yesterday.

Gary Leon Ridgway, a 54-year-old truck painter arrested in the serial killer case in 2001, will admit to murdering 42 women on investigators' list of Green River Killer victims, as well as six women not on the list, said the source, who spoke about the case on condition of anonymity.

The Green River Killer preyed mostly on prostitutes, drug addicts, young runaways, and other women on the streets. The case is named for the waterway where the first bodies were found in the suburbs south of Seattle in mid-1982. Most of the slayings were in the mid-1980s, but one of the slayings to which Ridgway will plead guilty was in 1998, the source said.

Mutants such as Ridgway or the D.C. Snipers should simply be dropped on an island far off the coast with their brethren. People who repeatedly commit horrors do not deserve compassion. Stick 'em on "the island." A couple of guard boats can circle the island to make sure no one escapes by raft or rescue.

And that's it! No buildings, no food-drops, no tools or clothing or medicine. Just them on their own. If they want shelter they'll have to build it. If they want food they'll have to grow it (and I wouldn't even allow food animals on the island because of what these mutants might do to them -- let them become vegetarians.) Let them rape or murder each other all they want. Let them form their own pecking order or government all they want.

They would be put on Devil's Island and forgotten. Aside from the guard boats, no assistance or intervention would ever be given. Let them live in the world they tried to inflict on the rest of us. This would be quite cost effective for society too.

See, execution is too good, swift, and painless for some of the worst among us. We need to create a punishment that will cause absolute terror in the hearts and minds of people contemplating the worst crimes. If they have "devils in their head" we have worse ones awaiting them on "the island."

Well, that's my fantasy for this October 31st... I'll try to write something a little more up-beat tonight but this Green River Murderer story really got to me. He rapes and murders 48 women and prosecutors cut a deal with him???

Now that's a nightmare befitting this holiday...

You know, I can generally enjoy a person's works, be they literary or on the silver screen or on TV irregardless of what they think about stuff in the real world. But if they're going to grandstand then... From Reuters:

Most blacklists are designed to intimidate. But thousands of Americans are clamoring to join one drawn up by the National Rifle Association.

Actor Dustin Hoffman was so dismayed to find his name missing from the NRA's shadowy 19-page list of U.S. companies, celebrities, and news organizations seen as lending support to anti-gun policies that he wrote to the powerful pro-gun lobby group begging to be included.

"As a supporter of comprehensive anti-gun safety measures, I was deeply disappointed when I discovered my name was not on the list," Hoffman wrote in a letter to the NRA that was released on Tuesday.

"I was particularly surprised by the omission given my opposition to the loophole that makes it legal for 18- to 20-year-olds to buy handguns at gun shows," he added.

Hoffman's name has now been added to the list which reads like a Who's Who of American business, culture and religion and which ranges from the American Jewish Congress to A&M Records, ABC News and talk show queen Oprah Winfrey.

I guess when you're movies are no longer making money, this is the type of nonsense you have to resort to... The last time I looked, it's a federal crime to sell a handgun to someone under 21 and since all FFL dealers -- even at gun shows -- are required to run a background check on purchasers, what loophole is "the Strawman" referring to? Some transaction in the parking lot? That's not in the gunshow. It might as well have occurred across the street or on the other side of town in someone's garage. And there is no way to prevent that kind of one-to-one business.

"Oh!" you exclaim, "then we should require all personal gun sales to be conducted at police stations or something." Do you really think the Bloods and the Crips and the muggers and other mutant criminals are going to obey any such law as that?

So I guess I'll skip Hoffman's latest movie. Apparently others are too since it only mustered fouth place in it's first week of release.

---

Update, comment:

Dustin Hoffman certainly does deserve a spot on the NRA's blacklist. I saw his recent movie, Runaway Jury, and it is nothing but two hours of anti-gun propaganda. The story concerns a widow who sues a gun manufacturer because of her husband's murder by a deranged gunman.

Mr. Hoffman plays her attorney, a man of high principles who is not in it for the money, and proves it by wearing cheesy-looking suits (just like all plaintiff's attorneys). John Cusack also rates a place on the blacklist. He and the actress who plays his girlfriend play the part of jury-tampering crooks, who shake down the defense's jury selection "consultant", played by Gene Hackman, by sabotaging his efforts to get the "right" jury.

He, of course, is stacking the jury, using the big bucks that the evil gun people paid him. We are led to believe that Cusack's character and his girlfriend are outlaws and are just trying to get a piece of the action, what with millions of dollars passing between Hackman's character and the gun manufacturers.

But, whoa!--near the end of the movie we discover that Cusack and girlfriend (whose sister died in a Columbine-like shooting) are going to use the money from Hackman ($15 million) to give to the survivors of gun violence--they had their own anti-gun agenda all along. And they are going to be regular little Robin Hoods with that $15 million.

I thought I would barf.

--Richard M. (New Orleans)

Thanks Richard! I don't go to movies except once in a while during the Summer when I catch a sci-fi flick at the drive-in, so I appreciate your review. Pay attention all you valued visitors: I know it's tempting to see it just to build-up steam to hate it but that would just put money in the pockets of the anti-gun forces. Richard has done the leg-work for us.

I have the best visitors and readers!

I am too a geeky dorkster. I'll show that Greg at the Hobbesian Conservative that I'm as nerdy as they come. I'm learning Lasso and mySQL even as we speak. I play StarCraft and WarCraft in my spare time. I used to be a Ham Radio operator. I have more cables coming out of my computer than you do! I have two computers sitting on my kitchen table. I am the geekiest of them all! Bwahahahaha....

However, that doesn't make me all bad!

I've always been interested in the majesty of the heavens. As a boy (and that was a loooong time ago) I buried my head in science fiction books and magazines and lost myself in speculations of the future. I (thanks to my parents) was involved in model rocketry, took astronomy courses given at the Hayden Planetarium in N.Y.C. and even took a course in paranormal phenomena given for young adults.

I have always wondered about our universe and all that is in it, about whether God exists and what was his part in it if any. I used to collect astronomical pictures and books and gaze at them in a day-dream state of what it might be like elsewhere in space.

Now before you pass-out from boredom by this post, there is a point to all this. A couple years ago I read Michael Crichton's Timeline, a time-travel adventure. Chrichton's special gift as a science-fiction writer is that he incorporates possible, believable science into his speculative writing. In this novel he gave credit to scientist David Deutsch for his book The Fabric Of Reality, which was a theory itself of the "multiverse," (many universes) based on his view of string-theory. Some of his ideas are out of the mainstream but are based on the (soft) rock-solid current thinking about the make-up of our universe and the reality we experience.

It was a tough read and I felt I needed some "prep-work" so I bought and read The Whole Shebang by New York Times science writer Timothy Ferris -- I appreciated his sweeping knowledge of astronomy (and other sciences) and had greatly enjoyed another book of his, The Red Limit. In The Whole Shebang he does an admirable job of trying to explain our (as in mankind's) current thinking about the universe and the physics behind it but it was still somewhat sketchy.

Sometime last year I still felt I needed a better explanation, especially of "string theory." I went to the Dartmouth Bookstore and noticed and bought The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It was a wonderful book that I lost myself in during the Summer of 2002. I would read a chapter of his clear explanations with everyday experiences used as analogies and then I'd have to put the book down and day-dream (and night-dream) about what I had just read.

If you want to immerse yourself in the latest thinking and theorizing about the constitution and philosophy and operation of the world we live in -- from the very small to the grandly large -- this is the book for you. It is worth every penny and I promise that if you are a thinking person with an open mind, this wonderful volume will keep your mind pondering and puzzling for hours on-end.

Now! Finally, I get to the point... I only get two TV channels and one is PBS and tonight at 8 PM (at least here in Vermont) they are presenting a Nova special based on Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and I am about to watch it. I urge all of you to "check your local listings" and catch this two hour special. If it is only half as good as Greene's book it will be fantastic and will give you a whole lot to think and speculate about. I hope they've done this book justice and if so, you will be well rewarded.

So open the TV Guide and set aside time to watch Nova's The Elegant Universe. Okay already!

The Fuz just sent me some spiffy pictures of his hunting trip and I'll use them in next week's report. And this is just a reminder to all of you readers and bloggers, if you have an item or photo or post you'd like to see included in the "weekly report" then send it on in...

---

Speaking of hunting and (by extension) fishing, look what Suman caught!

---

And my neighbor at the House of Wodinn (a student at UVM) has been helping with forming a University of Vermont gun club and has several posts about that so just head over there and start reading...

See you soon...

Welcome to my weekly report on media gun bias. Each week I take a look at the news stories and editorials linked to by Yahoo on their Gun Debate Page. This gives a good indication of what the (newspaper and magazine) major media are thinking and writing about gun rights.

I woke this morning to the sound of gunfire as avid hunters in the hills behind my house took advantage of a mild fall morning and Daylight Savings Time to secure food for the Winter. Hunting has been a tradition passed down from father to son (and daughter!) since the dawn of time. The hunting season here in Vermont is in full swing and judging by the line of pickup trucks at the local town reporting station, the harvest is good.

This week's chart is dedicated to President Theodore Roosevelt who loved hunting. Granted, he was mostly into "big-game" publicized by his trips to Africa and South America. And I doubt he actually cared to eat what he killed. But still, he was unusual and was probably the last American president to proudly popularize the sport of hunting.

Here's a picture of "Teddy" (can I refer to him that way?) with his beloved Winchester rifle. He owned several (some specially commissioned) over the years. From author Philip Schreier writing for the American Rifleman:

He was a human dynamo. He was the 26th and youngest President of the United States. He was an avid hunter, a Nobel Prize winner, a wildlife conservationist, a war hero, a Life member of the National Rifle Association, the author of 39 books, a father of six and the most gun-savvy man to ever occupy The White House. When it came to gun knowledge or shooting skill, no chief executive, now or then was his peer.

When it came to firearms he wrote a number of times that his favorite was the Winchester. From his first Winchester, a Model 1876 he ordered when he was 22 years old, to his favorite Model 1895, last used an a river exploration just scant years before his death at the age of 60, Roosevelt's Winchesters are now legendary and priceless pieces of Americana. Roosevelt, who was fond of exquisite goods, had within his economic means the ability to own any rifle manufactured during the period. Fine English doubles were considered the apex of the sporting world yet Roosevelt choose an American classic or, perhaps, the rifles he chose helped make them classics. Roosevelt's poor eyesight may have been a mitigating factor in his fondness for the arms of Oliver Winchester and his Winchester Repeating Arms Co. He was quoted as saying that he didn't "know how to shoot well, but I know how to shoot often."

---

So astoundingly, for only the second time in the past year, we see that while most of the stories linked to by Yahoo are neutral, the remaining articles feature more pro-gun (not more gun control) items than anti-gun (etc.)

One item from the Washington Post detailed how Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle was supporting the bill to shield gun makers and distributors from frivolous lawsuits after adding an amendment to it. Here's a quote:

Daschle's amendment would, among other things, clarify a product liability exception by providing coverage for reasonably foreseeable uses of a gun that aren't criminal. It would not protect gun makers from claims involving defective products or "straw purchasers," people who buy weapons for felons and others who are legally barred from having guns.

I worry about this a bit because I really don't see where gun manufacturers have any control over the final sale by the dealer. I can see a dealer being held liable for "straw purchasers" by not requiring sufficient identification from the buyer. Perhaps this was just poorly worded or not understood by the writer of this story.

Then there was this story, also from the Washington Post, about how all of a sudden the Democratic candidates are backing off the gun-issue... Sort of. Here are quotes from some of the them:

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. The Missouri Democrat said he is not interested in giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more authority to investigate gun crimes, a top priority for the gun control activist. "They have enough," he said in an interview.

I'm trying to remember just when it was that Gephardt didn't support a gun control bill.

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said Sen. John Edwards, one of nine Democrats seeking the presidency. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

It's also about buying and carrying a gun for self-defense, John...

In an interview, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Gore's running mate in 2000, said, "People have a right to own and purchase guns . . . but it comes with responsibility."

Al From, who runs the DLC, recently said Democrats can turn the gun issue into an advantage if they vigorously push for gun safety and rigorous enforcement of laws while reassuring voters they stand firmly in support of the Second Amendment. The idea is to move away from broad restrictions such as mandatory registration and toward more popular and narrower ideas aimed at making guns safer and keeping them away from criminals and children, which polls show voters widely support.

Lieberman's record on gun control is that he signed anything that came his way. Just once did he support a measure to protect Colt (located in his state) but otherwise...

Notice again that the DLC is calling for "gun safety." This is the new code word for gun control. Don't believe it folks -- that the Democrats suddenly believe in an unfettered Second Amendment. They will say and claim anything to get elected and if they are, they will go right back to supporting more restrictions on guns, their owners, and manufacturers.

The Opinion Journal had an unsigned editorial (not linked by Yahoo) putting Daschle and the Democrats in perspective:

President Bush has talked a lot about tort reform, but so far Congress has delivered precious little legislation for him to sign. That's mostly due to the opposition of Senate Democrats, who are wary of upsetting their plaintiffs' bar financiers. So it's certainly news that Minority Leader Tom Daschle recently decided to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill that will limit liability for gun manufacturers.

Perhaps Mr. Daschle has seen the light and concluded that it's wrong for Smith & Wesson to be held responsible for high homicide rates on the South Side of Chicago. But our guess is that the explanation is much more pragmatic. Mr. Daschle has seen the writing on the wall: Gun control, which was less about safety than about scaring suburbanites into voting for Democrats, is a political loser.

After the Gingrich revolution in 1994, Bill Clinton said the assault weapon ban angered gun owners enough to cost his party more than 20 seats. In 2000, the issue helped Al Gore lose his home state of Tennessee, among other traditionally Democratic rural states. The ban will expire next year, and no one's making much of a fuss. Howard Dean, the liberal Democratic Presidential front-runner, is now actively campaigning against gun control.

But like I said, don't trust them. If you elect a Democrat you will get more gun control. That's a guarantee.

Fiction writer and Brady Bunch spokesman Richard North Patterson also repeats the new "gun safety" mantra in this L.A. Times op-ed:

By trade, I'm a fiction writer, a creator of the imaginary. But in my latest novel, I chose fiction to expose a real-life American tragedy: the state of law and politics that has allowed the gun lobby to turn our country into the slaughterhouse of the civilized world. That's not a rhetorical flourish I've invented to sell books; it's a truth we've tolerated for far too long.

The facts regarding guns and children are particularly appalling. Our passing shock at Columbine merely obscured an epidemic: 12 kids a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns.

By the way, I don't know what statistics he's using but that figure includes "children" up to 25 years old, includes gang-related killings, etc. According to this report by the CDC:

A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined...

Children being defined as 0-15 years of age. The report does say that the rate is far higher than other countries surveyed but even so, this produces a figure of about three per day. The fact is, anyone can use statistics anyway that furthers their need. Blogger Kevin at The Smallest Minority did a more detailed analysis of this a while back.

But back to Patterson's editorial: Here again we hear the big lie, the "gun safety" issue which replaced "common sense gun control" which replaced banning all firearm possession in the U.S.:

Let me be clear: I believe that every law-abiding adult has the right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, whether for sporting use or self-protection. No one I know wants to confiscate guns. The gun safety movement has two simple goals: First, to prevent murder and injuries by keeping violent criminals, spousal abusers, drug abusers and the mentally ill from buying weapons. Second, to prevent accidents and suicides by making guns safer.

Firstly, that's what the "instant check" system is for, to prevent those who shouldn't own a gun from buying one. As for "making guns safer," well, that's just buzz for making them unusable when needed to defend your life.

That was it for Yahoo links. Let's take a look at some other stuff out and about.

---

I started this report with hunting and let's face it, you'll never read anything positive about it in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Here's part of an editorial by Reg Lequieu in the Herald and News of Klamath Falls, Oregon:

There are many personal rewards that give hunting a special character, place and value as part of America's heritage. Hunting is a unique way for an individual to interact with nature, and it helps a person learn about the outdoors. Hunting is an outdoor activity that can be enjoyed together by husbands and wives, parents and children. The hunting tradition goes back throughout the generations of the author's family. It is also my conviction that the "hunting gene" is deeply embedded in the DNA of my lineage.

New friendships and a sense of good sportsmanship can arise from a day spent hunting. It also provides an opportunity to engage in good physical exercise and refresh one's mind and spirit. Many people consider game, such as elk, deer, pheasant, wild duck and geese, to be a delicacy. Nothing like it can be purchased at the supermarket.

Read the whole thing. It will reassure you that we're not all alone. About a year ago I wrote about a story from the local Burlington Free Press (story no longer available, alas) but I can quote:

Kim Drury remembers going deer hunting with her father at their Stowe farm when she was a girl.

He would stop to show her where deer had bedded down. She would scramble to keep up with his long strides. Then there were the little fires Kermit Spaulding would make in the woods so he could toast a banana sandwich for lunch.

Most of all, Spaulding taught a then-8-year-old Drury to appreciate the sport. "It's just great to be out and experience the woods," said Drury, now 41. "You know, the quietness and the excitement of the harvest. I think it's an important part of our real, grass-roots heritage."

Now Drury is passing that passion onto her 6-year-old daughter, Haley. When deer season opened last Saturday, the two headed into the woods on Stowe's Luce Hill. The excursion was hardly new for Haley -- she first went into the woods during hunting season when she was 7 months old, packed into a baby backpack swaddled in blaze orange.

I guess this really shows the divide between people in rural areas and their condescending counterparts living in coastal urban cities. Like night and day in what the newspapers in those respective areas will print. I just did a news search on the Washington Post for "hunting" and nothing about hunting came up...

Come to think of it, when is the last time an urban newspaper included an item on it's sports pages about a rifle-team? You'd have to go to Alaska... From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

The five-time defending NCAA champion University of Alaska Fairbanks rifle team opened its season with a victory over the highly-regarded Kentucky Wildcats on Saturday at the Patty Center.

While the Nanooks weren't in peak form, they still had enough firepower to post a 31-point victory, 6,235-6,204.

"That's about 45 points below where they could be, easily," UAF coach Glenn Dubis said following Saturday's competition. "We still won by a substantial margin against Kentucky, which is probably the No. 2 team in the nation."

Folks, please do send links like this to me from your local papers so I can include them in this "weekly report." And these are the types of stories that can show our youth that guns have far more uses -- including fun ones such as competition -- than the major national papers would ever allow.

---

Turning to the "new media" of the blogosphere, several of my friends have posts about hunting including Weckuptothees with several posts including his speedgoat.

Swen at A Coyote at the Dog Show has several as well such as his Bighorn hunting trip.

Les Jones went to the range with Say Uncle and with his Glock 26 and Kel-tec P11. Here's his report.

---

Anyway, I'm out of time for this edition. Thanks to all who wrote in and thanks to all of you for stopping by.

---

Update: Got this comment:

In your Media Bun-Bias review this week, you quoted from Richard North Patterson's LA Times editorial; I was dumbfounded by the closing statement:

"The gun safety movement has two simple goals: ... Second, to prevent accidents and suicides by making guns safer."

Try as I might, I can't get my head around this argument. How, exactly, can anything along the lines of "making guns safer" actually reduce their use for suicide? Maybe he's thinking of installing a radio-activated trigger lock on the gun, and sticking a transponding chip into the head of each and every citizen? Putting a large wireframe basket around the grip, facing backward, so it's impossible to point the gun at yourself (think of those collars the vet puts on an injured cat or dog)?

As long as a gun can be operated, it can be used for suicide!

I'm mystified; infact, that line is simple, unmitigated moonbat blather. But what really disturbs me about it is that he apparently thought someone might consider it a reasonable argument!

Were all lefties dropped on their heads as children?

--Troy L.

Sometimes I suspect so. Patterson was probably referring to "smart guns" which I've already taken apart here almost a year ago (see the "pro-2a" page and scroll waaaaay back.) But that certainly wouldn't prevent the gun owner from shooting himself -- just, as I said, defending himself "on the quick." And let's face it, anyone determined to commit suicide will find a way anyway.