First the Anecdotal Part:
There’s a lot of misinformation, lies and stuff that’s just plain made up floating around out there and filling up the intertubes with useless junk.
Now we all do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, right?
You cannot take one person’s statement of their opinion and assume that everyone shares that same opinion. For example the Minneapolis Chief of police commented “If law-enforcement professionals believed that guns were the answer to reducing crime, your nation’s police chiefs would be leading the charge for more guns.”
However, he is voicing his own opinion, that’s how he feels. This opinion however, is not in line with the annual survey of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. In their most recent annual survey (2010) they asked the question “Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense?” A full 95% of them said yes.
I can name several Police Chiefs, right off the top of my head, who are pro private citizen gun ownership for sport or self defense but guess what, it doesn’t matter. That’s their individual opinions. You cannot extrapolate one or two or ten person’s opinions into facts.
The numbers speak for themselves, and 95 % of your nation’s Chiefs of Police Support civilian gun ownership.
More examples of sweeping generalizations I have run across lately:
“The “gun guys” do not like law enforcement.”
“So at the the (sic) gun range in my area one must be an NRA memberr (sic) to belong I assume that is not unusual.”
Remember what they say about assuming?
Now for the making stuff up part…
Our friend Tom Gresham is fond of saying “A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.”
So, I am going to challenge some of the lies, silliness and just made up stuff I have come across on a blog recently.
”The truth is, we haven’t really tried gun control.”
Really? Never tried it? Have you heard of Chicago? Washington DC? Two places with the most stringent gun control in the country and very high rates of all types violent crime. Things are so bad in those cities that private citizens petitioned the Supreme Court of the USA to regain some of their 2nds amendment rights and guess what, they won. See the Heller and McDonald Decisions.
For lighter reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
“With a few exceptions, we have very few federal gun laws.”
It’s hard to determine exactly how many federal gun laws that are on the books because how do you count laws? Is the Obama Health Care plan one law or a compilation of many laws under one heading? This book, by Alan Korwin, claims to explain 271 Federal Gun Laws: http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Now I can list, off the top of my head, at least 10 examples of Federal Gun Laws right here:
• National Firearms Act
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• Civil Rights Act of 1968
• Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
• Postal Regulations on the Mailing of Firearms
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
• Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
• Laws concerning Firearms Aboard Aircraft
• Laws delineating the Exportation of Firearms
• Laws outlining the Use and Possession of Firearms in National Parks and Forests
While 10 might not seem like a lot to some people, most of these laws are large and sweeping and do things like: regulate machine guns, list “prohibited persons”, establish the ATF, establish waiting periods and the NICS system and include many laws.
“If you buy a partially assembled gun, open the box in which your gun comes and you will find right on the top of the box is a message from the NRA. You had better join them because, if not, your guns will be confiscated.”
I don’t even know that this means “a partially assembled gun” I know that Taurus offered a free NRA membership last year but I believe that their guns were fully assembled. Nowhere on this flyer does it say or even imply that “You had better join them (the NRA) because, if not, your guns will be confiscated.” It a rather attractive flyer, not menacing in any way at all.
“Most law enforcement offices (sic) carry 10 round magazines.”
“… 10 rounds. Those are the standard magazines and have been for many years.”
I did a little research and came up with the following information about which duty weapons State police carry. It seems that the only ones that are limited to 10 rounds or less are the pistols that were designed that way. (Glock 37 and S&W 4500 series, all limited in their capacity because they carry larger caliber cartridges that take up more space inside the magazine and the gun.)
Glock 17 - 17 rnds of 9mm
Indiana State Police
SIG P228 – 15 rnds of 9mm
New Jersey State Police
Glock 21 – 13 rnds of .45
Arkansas, Idaho, and Kansas
Glock 31 – 15 rnds of .357 SIG
Tennessee Highway Patrol
Smith & Wesson M&P – 15 rnds of .357 SIG
New Mexico and North Carolina
SIG-Sauers P226 or P229– 12 rnds of .357 SIG
Delaware, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, and Virginia
S&W 4006 – 11 rnds of .40
California Highway Patrol
Smith & Wesson M&P – 15 rnds of .40
Colorado, Iowa, and Washington
Beretta (Px4), 14 rnds of .40
Maryland
SIG .40s, either P226 or P229 – 12 rnds of .40
Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio, and Vermont
Idaho troopers have the choice of a Glock 22 15 rnds of .40 , or a Glock 21, 13 rnds of .45 ACP.
Louisiana State Troopers carry the Glock 17 RTF – 17 rnds of 9mm or Glock 22 – 15 rnds of .40
Minneapolis Police are authorized a broad variety of pistols that hold more than 10 rounds.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mpdpolicy/3-200/3-200.asp#P21_76
The Glock .40, America’s single most popularly chosen standard issue police handgun, including St.Paul MN. (15 round magazines)
http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHJF11/?page=22
http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm
Oh, and let’s not forget the “Patrol Rifles” that many police depts. use with 20 – 30 round magazines.
(Isn’t it odd that cops use “Patrol Rifles” but civilians use “Assault Rifles”?)
The Minneapolis Police Dept equips theirs with 20 Round magazines.
As for 10 rounds being the standard magazine for many years. Maybe that was true during the “Assault Weapons” ban, that expired in 2004, but that is certainly not how the guns were designed.
So be careful out there on the Intertubes and don’t take anything that anybody says as “fact” without checking it out for yourself. They might just be pulling their “facts” out of their behind.
Before leaving on your hunting trip, prepare yourself well. Never go to an unplanned location or take off on a spontaneous hunting trip. Let others know where you are planning to hunt and when you will be returning. If necessary, leave detailed directions to your hunting grounds with friends or family that will be staying home in case an emergency arises and they need to direct medical personnel to your location. Try to return home as close to your planned time as possible. If you are late checking in, your contact person can then know to set out using your directions to see if you need assistance. ;.’.
http://www.healthmedicine101.com
Very latest post from our own web page
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to bear arms. Has any law ever been so ambiguous? What are arms? What does it mean to bear them? At least with the first amendment we know exactly where we stand: Freedom of speech. It couldn’t be any clearer. But, the right to bear arms leaves the second amendment open to different interpretations. We need gun permits to carry a concealed weapon. Do we need knife permits? No. Yet both can, and often do, cause death. We can own a gun, or a rifle, or a sub-machine gun, or a machete, and dozens of other tools to kill, even our own bare hands. So, gun control is a debate in our country that makes no sense unless you broaden the ban or acceptance to include all instruments of death….
Adieu
http://melatoninfaq.com
Pingback: If Guns Were Illegal…. | Where Angels Fear To Tread
Pingback: Bullshit, Lies, Half Truths « Freedom Is Just Another Word…
I just keep asking her after every post: “Have you told your “hunting friends” about the gun control in the UK and Australia?”
If she’s interested in honesty and Common Sense — then she’ll make sure they understand exactly what will happen to their hunting rifles, antiques, collectibles, and everything else.
I must have missed her reply – she claims to have answered me already. Guess I’m banned.
I’ll still get a chance for discourse with her group at the Capitol as we lobby for progression here in MN though.
I didn’t see it either.
But as you know she is not interested in honesty or common sense.
I have been calling her bluff and slinging factual data at her for a long time.
The Clinical terms I do not have but she has fixated on guns to try and absolve herself of guilt. Her sister was murdered by a domestic partner. I have a sneaking suspicion she lobbied her sister to stay in the relationship and did not help her leave when the tragedy happened. So instead of Joan Blaming Joan and her sister for not leaving, and for not blaming the scumbag who murdered sister, she blames everyone and everything else.
“We haven’t really tried gun control.” There’s a reason that doesn’t make sense to most of you who are taking her words at face value. What she means is very revealing and demonstrates the end goal of all gun control advocates. Let me re-word it for her; We haven’t really tried banning all civilian ownership of firearms. That’s exactly what she is saying but can’t use those words because it’s against the nature of gun control advocates to speak frankly in these matters. Par for the course is double-speak. It’s also awkward to say that aloud when every genocide of this century was preceded by gun registration and confiscation. And it’s awkward to say that in a country with a constitutional amendment that reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
I believe you are 100% correct.
We’ll see if this passes her filter..
I’ll be looking for it. If she approves it I’ll buy you a drink.
Will not happen……
OMG. She posted and discounted it because “her” Chief of Police doesn’t agree. I need to find a rock to go bang my head against and I owe you a drink.
I just came to say “you owe me a drink” but you beat me to it.
Her answer about “that not what my..” doesn’t bother me half as much as she doubts the validity because of blah blah blah. Yet she posts all kinds of newspaper polls.
She cites that only 30% of homeowners own weapons because of the VPC poll, http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunownership.pdf, from the GSS which phoned people and asked “is there a gun in the house?” and “do you own it?”
How many people are going to answer that?
This is just another example of why you cannot reason with t a person like her. “In her world” everything she says, quotes, cites or makes up is “truth” and any evidence to the contrary is false. I still cannot even begin to fathom her latest post.
One thing about JaPete is… well, go outside, grab the nearest rock and start talking to it- you’ll get a lot farther and hear more common sense. She’s never had the guts to post any of my comments (maybe because I call her a stupid lying moron bitch, but that’s another story), and honestly- after reading two of her posts, I had to stop. She has not one iota of intelligence or intellectual honesty. And that makes her and her dickwad MikeB extremely dangerous.
Shy III
Well, I couldn’t agree more. At first I was incredulous but then I got mad at the misinformation and close minded attitude.
So let’s listen to what folks who have some reason and common sense have to say, like Vincent D’Onofrio of T.V’s Law and Order in the You Tube video linked above.
The link then goes to a monotone video of VD moaning on about large capacity magazines and images of spent rounds from a full auto MG…. Oh dear and gentle viewers how go we know this well how about the links for the belt fed MG at the 25 second mark….
Here’s the link, funny how the comment have been turned off…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLthSyDQ8a0&feature=youtu.be
Yeah, I’ll take gun advice from Vincent D’Onofrio when I take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
…and she admitted to wanting to ban “sniper rifles” and “armor piercing ammunition”.
The definitions of a sniper rifle weren’t limited to .50 caliber rifles…it was any rifle capable of accepting a telescopic sight, and sub-MOA accuracy at an “unspecified range”. Thats any hunting rifle.
“Armor piercing ammo” — any full metal jacketed round that would penetrate police body armor…so, pretty much any FMJ round…the cheapest ones out there for practice.
I just wanted her to spell it out for her “hunting” friends that she IS indeed after their hunting rifles, and for her collector friends that she’s after their M1 Garands and cheap MilSurp plinking ammo too!
She seems to think that the police or ATF would use discretion and not go after those people, like with her post on the 1000ft gun free zone around schools. I’d have to dig it up, but she wrote something to the effect of ‘the cop won’t arrest anyone if they’re not doing anything wrong, so go ahead and drive through the arbitrarily defined zone’. She completely believes that there won’t be unintended consequences, or won’t admit that the laws they propose are purposely written to be vague.
Oh man, she just takes what people write and finds a completely different meaning in them. Migo says we have an unalienable right to pursue happiness, therefore we have a right to own whatever firearm we wish as long as we are using them legally. Joan replies “Sorry, Migo- I do not believe that anyone has an inalienable right to kill someone with any type of gun they think they have to have. That carries things too far”. When the hell did Migo say anything about killing people? She puts words in your mouth and extracts a different meaning out of everything. If anybody is living in their own world, it’s definitely her!
DHS,
You must read japetes comments with this firmly implanted in the order of evaluation. Guns kill, therefore anything gun is bad. It would seem after reading her writing for over six months that I can easily exptrapolate that japete believes that
guns can motivate nominally good people to do horrendous acts.
Yes, in that cult of the antigun, she is happy.
Eck!
She stopped posting my comments after she replied to one of my comments saying that I was harassing her and that I just wanted her to say that she was coming to get my guns. I’m trying to point out where her points are invalid and where the logic is flawed, and suggest reasonable alternatives to stopping gun violence, but everything is just a personal attack to her. She’s hopeless, she refuses to accept that there might be a different course of action to prevent crime. At least she sometimes admits when she’s wrong, sometimes.
Does she seriously think that we don’t want to stop gun violence, that we don’t care? Apparently she thinks that you can control the situation. You can’t control criminals or what they are willing to do, all you can do is try to remove criminals and prevent new ones. But no, that would require doing work, that would require putting people behind bars, that would require bringing jobs back and getting kids off the streets and into school. She seems to think that simply putting words on paper will somehow keep criminals from hurting people.
Boy, everyone is getting banned. I am afraid the Pat will be next as he’s pushing her now. I don’t understand why she has a blog that allows comments. Of course we all want to stop gun violence but not by any of her methods they are just “feel good” methods. They are “look I fought for and got XXX banned, I have done my part to make this a better world” Never mind that it didn’t accomplish Jack. Just like the AWB a bunch of “feel good” legislation that didn’t accomplish anything.
She doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact. She also doesn’t understand the difference between intent and result. She thinks that because she INTENDS these laws to impact only criminals, therefore they only do impact criminals.
Heather, she is fond of talking about how things are “in her world” My friend Miguel sums up pretty well how it is in “Her world”
Pingback: fighting a losing battle | walls of the city
Let us not forget the biggest one of them all the legislation that discontinued the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian use. It seem that recently, archival footage of the actual vote, chaired by that bard of ethics and honesty, Charlie Wrangel. and low and behold, when the footage, actual film footage is viewed, the senate bill DID NOT PASS. Yet it has been enforced AS LAW. I bring this up as an example of making stuff up. First and foremost, the second amendment does not specify how fast a gun shoots , how long it is or how quiet it is. It delineates a right. It does not GIVE us a right. Second, the lawful machine gun owning population of this country is the MOST law abiding group in existence. No one misbehaves. Yet we have thousands upon thousand of illegals with , oh my god, batf delivered assault riles due to project gunwalker, that eventually kill a border patrol agent. And every cartel gunman who attacks U.S. citizens seems to have all the firepower he wants. Yet we, the law abiding sheep, are restricted. Thomas Jefferson stated that citizens need to have firearms to stand up to tyrannical govt. Yet I see our gunrights restricted more and more and more.
Oh, but that restriction is just “common sense”. No…common sense would be removing a law-breaking segment of the population, rather than restricting the law-abiding.
Thats the problem – most of us “gun guys” don’t even see ourselves as “gun guys” – I’m just a normal American who happens to like things that go bang. In Joan’s and the rest of the anti’s eyes, I’m just one moment away from snapping and taking out a crowd at a grocery store. I resent being placed in that stereotype, so I started working against them. I write senators and congresspeople, I blog, and I educate myself and others about existing laws, and the safe and responsible usage of firearms.
I refuse to surrender to their blissfully ignorant view of America’s future.
Funny but we are just “normal” people. I wonder if there’s not a little projection going on here as evidenced by her comment ” It’s just natural to want to shoot someone when you don’t agree with them or have a beef or you’re drunk and can’t quite think straight.” Why would someone say that? Is that what she thinks we think or is that what she thinks? I started this blog because I was sick of all the lies misinformation out there and I see how normal people get sucked in and believe those lies. I hope I can stop some of that suckage.
Bret, Is that video available on line anywhere? I have never seen it and would be interested.
Prior to finding Joan, and the rest of the “Citizens for a Safer Minnesota” crowd (all 12 of them)…I was primarily a Fudd; a hunter, had a few hunting shotguns/rifles, heck I even “joined” Citizens for a Safer Minnesota on the mistaken assumption they were about keeping kids safer through education and such…but Joan’s (and Heather Marten’s) hatred of all things firearm-related galvanized me with their discussion regarding the banning of “sniper rifles” which would have, by definition, eliminated my grandfather’s Remington 700 deer rifle. Not acceptable…so I took it upon myself to get educated and oppose these bliss-ninnies. They will never change their mind — but I can at least stop them from providing such a one-sided view of things to the public.
Based on the comments Joan publishes, and her view counter at the bottom — I don’t think she gets much BESIDES “gun guys” to her blog (MikeB, and Baldr aside). She’s, for the most part, screaming to an empty room, or alternatively, preaching to the choir…but we just have to keep up the pressure to ensure that it stays empty.
People have to realize that Joan is as much about common sense as big tobacco is about quitting smoking. She comes across as too wordy, ignorant, and detached from reality.
(Gail – allowing comments on your blog is remarkably therapeutic, considering 3/4 of my comments on Joan’s never get published, and I’m not even being insulting!)
I wish there were more people like you who seek to learn more, not like the person who’s mind is made up and will never change no matter how much evidence to the contrary is obvious. I followed a similar path except that I didn’t hunt and I grew up in the city where guns were “bad.” Only the bad guys had them and, of course, we would be safer without them. Then one day out of curiosity and with a few good friends I looked into this “gun thing” and I never looked back. Now I realize how manipulated we were.
I’m glad you commented here and it looks to me like you are teetering towards banishment over there.
japete: “we haven’t really tried gun control”
To that I say using her own words..
Where is your evidence for such a statement?
Just stop saying it. I should have known that one of you would distort the message.
My belief is ignorance is not a justification for lies. here in MA (Volksreplubik)
where we have “may issue” license to even own firearms or components of, registration, gun restriction (AWB plus AGs list of banned firearms) and invasive laws we still have her infamous “Gun Death”. It’s not working, hasn’t stopped anything, the laws have been misused and misapplied. But we have criminals
and I mean of the habitual sort running loose and killing cops.
Sound to me that we haven’t tried we haven’t really tried criminal control.
Eck!
Gail,
Great rebuttal – I really can’t tell you how pleased I am that you set up this blog. Many times I just stare speechless at what Joan writes as fact. She really has drank the coolaid – I beleive that she believes her words and views are fact.
Keep up the great work.
I’m adopting the term “patrol rifle” to define some of my collection. Think I’ll start using it in some of my response as well.
I did get her to agree that going to the range is a sporting activity though. I wonder if she knows about 3-gun?
JaPete gets crabby,
“I tire of all of the comments here. Yes, O.K. I admit it. I want to make you a criminal and I want to see you in jail. That is my main aim. Are you happy now? Tell it to all of your friends. The main goal of the Brady Campaign and other gvp groups is to put as many law abiding citizens as possible in jail and let the criminals run free with their guns and ammunition. That is clearly the kind of world we want to see.”
See now don’t you feel better now, part of getting better is recognizing you have a problem…..
February 5, 2011 6:56 PM
And she does read the comments….
Dear Thomas,
You are not welome on this blog. None of your comments will be published and you can stop harassing me and ridiculing me. Thank you very much.
February 5, 2011 6:23 PM
Do you think she’s mad, I mean angry? She just can’t take it when people challenge her assertions or call her on her errors or misinformation or lies. Welcome to Japete exile.
Oh she reads your comments, so keep up the pressure….
remember she is nothing more than an bleating/evil/socialist/marxist bell-ringer….
but she needs to be reminded of this every minute of every hour of everyday….
Bling… bling… bling…bling… bling… bling…
That’s a good point about Patrol vs Assault rifles. It really highlights how they attempt to poison the debate with false connotations, the implication being that anyone who has an assault weapon is up to no good. Then they wonder why we ‘nitpick’ over details.
We can’t let them define the terms. Assault Weapon, cop-killer bullets, Mata Policia, sniper rifle, Saturday Night Special, Semi-automatic weapon, if you say these with a real look of seriousness and concern you can scare the general public into believing that these things are exceptionally dangerous and thus must be banned. Don’t let them define the terms.
My favorite was the ‘armor piercing hollow points’ LOL. It’s like they literally just string technical terms and buzzwords together.
We she stated that “we haven’t really tried gun control” I just about vomited. I provided a list very similar to yours above (yours in more complete) – but I doubt it’ll make it past the japete security sweep…ya know, when she’s wrong, many comments just don’t get through because, ya know, she’s doing for readers “other than the gun guys”.
She’s either an incredible moron, or something FAR more sinister…I actually am starting to think that she wants us to think of her as harmless and naive…
it probably will not make it through her “filter” my comment yesterday did not and I posted as “Anonymous” since she won’t approve any of my comments. Maybe she recognized me. I can’t believe that she said “we haven’t really tried gun control” with a straight face, seriously? She may or may not be harmless and naive but she certainly is dangerous with her rhetoric.