There probably isn’t an agenda in this story. ABC cites research that says, surprise, guns are effective at killing at a close range, especially when the target is holding the gun and wants to die. Weird:

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens’ ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

The anti-gun vitriol is just dripping off of those paragraphs. It is really sickening to see this passed off as “news.” They are trying to connect the presence of a gun with the desire to kill yourself. Read that last paragraph again and tell me they aren’t. The presence of a gun does not equal suicide.

Look at the facts. According to this article, “Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005…” That’s 17,050 people who took their life with a gun.

Wow. That is a big number. Now, how many guns are there in America? According to the National Rifle Association, there are 250,000,000. Hmmm. Well, how many gun owners? 70,000,000 to 80,000,000. There are more than 70,000,000 gun owners in America, and because 17,050 people decided to use a gun to end their life, we should be against guns.

I know I’m not the only one seeing the absurdity of this article.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

“Other methods are not as lethal,” said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court’s majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

“If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,” Breyer wrote.

So what? Really, what does that have to do with anything? You can take the term gun out, replace it with anything, and it is true. Look, it works:

• “If a resident has a butcher knife in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a butcher knife in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,”
• “If a resident has a screech owl in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a screech owl in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,”
• “If a resident has a cherry cheesecake in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a cherry cheesecake in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,”
• “If a resident has a complete set of the X-Files DVDs in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a complete set of the X-Files DVDs in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,”
• “If a resident has a Hillary Clinton photo in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a Hillary Clinton photo in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,”

Who cares? If a person wants to kill himself, the lack of a gun isn’t going to stop him. Perhaps we need to ask WHY 17,050 people killed themselves, rather than HOW they killed themselves. But, the anti-gun folks have become very desperate and are using their deaths to try to advance their agenda. Pitiful.

Update

: Podcast was canceled because of a BTR glitch. We will try to reschedule the interview for another day.

Guy Midkiff has agreed to host tonight’s podcast. Guy has been a frequent guest of the podcast, discussing the Second Amendment and the Constitution. He writes the blog Concealed.wordpress.com, a blog focused on concealed carry issues and the Second Amendment.

Guy will be talking with David Hardy, author of the website, “Of Arms and the Law.” A little info on the guest:

David T. Hardy has practiced law since 1975. He was born in Phoenix to an old-line Arizona family: his great-grandfather was Nat Hickman, a gunslinging outlaw who took the alias of Charles W. Hardy when he fled to the Arizona Territory in 1872. There he married an Indian, and was elected the first JP of Cave Creek, A.T.

Hardy served as Associate Editor of the Arizona Law Review, and was on the moot court team which took first place in the Regional competition and competed at the Nationals in New York City. He was also on the team which won the statewide American College of Trial Lawyers competition for best jury argument.

Since then he has handled cases up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won a death penalty appeal in the Arizona Supreme Court. From 1982 to 1992 he worked in Washington at the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, mostly representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hardy has five books and thirteen law review articles in print; one of the articles has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and eleven of the thirteen U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Should be a very good discussion on the results of this historic case. Listen to it live here, tonight at 9 pm CST.

After the last few brain dead decisions from the SCOTUS, I was really starting to worry about this one:

Individual Americans have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday for the first time in history, striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the high court has addressed the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It rejected the argument the right to keep and bear arms was tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use it for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. However, he said the new right was not unlimited.

The court struck down two parts of the country’s strictest gun control law adopted in Washington, D.C., 32 years ago — the ban on private handgun possession and the requirement that firearms kept at home be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

The ruling marked the first time the court has struck down a gun control law for violating the Second Amendment.

The ruling won praise from the White House, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and Wayne LaPierre of the politically powerful National Rifle Association, who said, “This is a great moment in American history.”

It drew fire from gun control groups, which warned of new legal attacks on existing gun laws, and some Democrats in Congress like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said the decision “opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety.”

The four liberal dissenting justices warned of the ruling’s consequences. “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.

I think I speak for all gun owners when I say, “WHEW!”

Should a business owner be allowed to tell an employee that they cannot bring a gun to work? I know that where I work, guns are not allowed on the property, period. I don’t have a problem with someone bringing a gun to work, mainly because I will be given a gun at work and am trained in how to use it.

However, there are some business owners in Florida who are not so keen on the idea of their employees carrying in their car:

A local gun storeowner believes the “guns at work” law will offer needed protection for people who might encounter threatening situations while traveling for their job.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation opposes the legislation, which allows Floridians to keep a gun in their locked cars on work premises if they have a concealed weapons permit.

The groups filed suit in federal court in Tallahassee, seeking to block the legislation from taking effect July 1. A hearing for an injunction is scheduled today.

The Florida chamber’s stance is “a business owner should be able to decide if employees can or cannot bring guns on their property,” according to the group’s Web site.

Van Morgan, owner of Morgan’s Archery & Firearms Pro Shop, said employers’ rights and discretion must be balanced with employees’ personal property rights. Morgan said a business is overstepping authority and infringing on the Second Amendment by telling people what they can or cannot keep in their cars. If someone were injured or killed while driving to or from work or somewhere on the job, Morgan said the employer “has some culpability by not allowing you to bear arms.”

I really understand both sides. I understand the business owner saying, “This is my property, and I have a right to say what comes on it.” I understand the employee saying, “I leave your property after dark and youdon’t have security, so I want to be able to protect myself.”

Personally, I say people should be able to bring guns to work, and there is one good reason for that:

Several lawmakers who voted for the bill, including Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, and the bill sponsor, Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, said they did not know how many companies had policies against guns in vehicles. Patronis, who co-owns Capt. Anderson’s Restaurant, said he understands why some businesses want to prohibit firearms in vehicles, but he believes the final bill balanced customer and employee safety.

“To have the gun in your car, you must have a concealed weapons permit. And getting that permit involves background checks, firearm training, licensure requirements,” said Patronis, also a NRA member.

These are responsible gun owners, and are not going to hurt anyone with their guns. The fact is, unless you are doing metal frisks, a lot of these folks could carry all day long, and no employer would ever notice. The guy who scares these business owners isn’t going to care about his little ban anyway. Why not have a few more firearms nearby to take that guy down?

Difficult to say that this is a case of gun defense, but, I guess the gun did play a part in the crime being stopped:

A 19-year-old man accidentally shot and killed himself Tuesday morning while he was attempting to rob a Grand Prairie home, authorities said.

Cameron Sands, 19, of Fort Worth kicked in the door of the house and then shot himself in the stomach as he pulled a gun out of his pants to shoot the homeowner, Grand Prairie police said. The homeowner was not injured.

After Mr. Sands shot himself, he dropped the gun and ran out of the home. Police found his body around 5:30 a.m. in the driveway of the home in the 2800 block Garden Grove Road, said Lt. John Brimmer, a Grand Prairie police spokesman.

As I told the kids at the Academy, “To choose the act is to accept the consequences.” Sad that a kid died though, but, no one made him try to rob that place.

Hat Tip: The Lone Voice

I was looking for a story about the public school system, but I found this instead. This is a great example of why guns should be an individual right:

A woman said she used a gun to scare away a man who was trying to lure her teenage daughter into a truck.

The mother, who did not wish to be identified, said the man approached her 16-year-old daughter on Alhambra Circle near their home.

“She was walking her dog in the median right out in front of our house here, and a man approached her in a truck and tried to get her to come to the truck,” the woman said.

The teenager ran to nearby Coral Gables Elementary School, calling her mother and 911. The mother confronted the man and showed him her 9-mm gun.

“It’s not until I showed him that I was armed and that I meant business to protect my daughter that he backed off,” she said.

Another CCW uses their gun in self-defense. Now, what happens in this situation if the woman isn’t allowed to have a gun, and finds herself between this guy and her daughter? That’s why I call the gun the great equalizer.

“I’m licensed. I shoot almost every week,” she said.

The woman said she recommends a day at the shooting range for every parent.

Sound advice.

From “The Sun”:

The 27-year-old hero spoke out as the country was rocked by yet another 24 hours of vicious attacks. The horror toll in the last few days includes:

• FIFTEEN knife thugs slashing at customers as two drug gangs battled in a family pub in Bickley, Kent — leaving two men fighting for life and the bar looking “like an abattoir”.
• A PUB landlord being stabbed by three thieves in nearby Sidcup. Harry Potter actor Rob Knox, 18, was killed trying to protect his brother from a yob in the town on Saturday.
• A MARRIED man aged 31 being stabbed to death by a baying mob who smashed his car and hauled him out in Bradford, West Yorks.
• THREE boys aged 12, 13, and 15 being quizzed over the killing of Amar Aslam, 17, in Dewsbury, West Yorks — including one alleged to have taken a picture as Amar lay dying.
• FATHER-of-two Alan Riddock, 41, being stabbed to death when he challenged vandals at a pub in Bedminster, Bristol.

Notice anything? They are all knife attacks. Crimes with the criminal using a knife are rising in Breat Britain. Why would that be? The British have banned guns, so there is no threat of a citizen being able to defend themselves.

But don’t think all the criminals are using knives:

Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06.

Also, government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.

So, seeing that the banning of guns is a complete failure, what is the next logical step? Well, first they need to ban knives. Wait…they did that already:

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

“The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

“Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

“An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

“The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives.”

So guns are banned, and gun crime increases. And knives “offensive weapons” are outlawed, and knife attacks are spiraling out of control. So, maybe there is another answer. A softer, more loving answer:

I refuse to believe that the streets of our cities are filled with murderous youths intent on killing one another. But I do think they are full of misguided ones who think that a jab to the arm or the leg will leave only a scar.

And I do think that they are full of boys who are damaged - be it by drugs, poverty, parents - and who need to know that violence doesn’t resolve conflicts: it just creates more of them.

The police have tried knife amnesties, but as long as there are carrots to dice and onions to slice there will always be knives.

They have tried curfews, too, but teenagers will always find a way.

What they really need to implement are proper education programmes that teach children the consequences of sticking a knife into someone’s body; or, even better, how to control their anger so that they don’t end up getting into such a situation in the first place.

Yeah, because the kids out there stabbing each other just think they are scarring each other. They have no idea that stabbing someone can actually kill them. What is even more staggering is this paragraph from the same article:

In April this year, just a two-minute drive up the road from where my friend was attacked, 16-year-old Kodjo Yenga was chased down the street by a gang of boys and girls chanting “Kill him”; that they did, by stabbing him and leaving him on the street in a pool of blood.

Keep living in denial. Keep refusing “to believe that the streets of our cities are filled with murderous youths intent on killing one another.”

Meanwhile, in America, we can read these headlines:

• Men Attempt Robbery, Woman Shoots One Dead, Deputies Say
• Burglary Suspect Shot By Homeowner
• Pawn shop thief shot
• Armed homeowner scares off burglar
• Neighbor Fatally Shoots Donut Store Robber

Maybe the answer lies in giving the people the ability to defend themselves.

Excellent reasoning for concealed carry. It isn’t that gun owners wants to use the gun they carry, just like no one ever wants to use the seat belt they fasten in their car. But, as I have said over and over, it is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Case in point:

Traveling jewelry salesman Leon Rozio and his partner were returning to Miami from a West Palm Beach sales call when they made an unscheduled stop to pick up a payment at the St. Moritz Jewelers store in Boca Raton.

Rozio and authorities now think a gang of sophisticated robbers was following him, targeting him in the latest of a series of brazen daylight heists of South Florida precious gem dealers that are the focus of FBI and local police investigations.

After his partner went inside the store Wednesday afternoon, Rozio parked. Robbers quickly boxed him in with their silver SUV, and three windows in Rozio’s Ford Explorer exploded.

“On that day, I think I was as close to being killed as any other,” Rozio recounted in a Thursday interview.

A robber grabbed the duffel bag filled with more than $100,000 worth of precious stones. He had a black shirt wrapped around his head and face, with only his eyes showing, “like they do in those riots in South America,” Rozio said.

Licensed to carry a concealed firearm, Rozio scrambled out of his SUV and fired several shots.

He hit and killed one of the jewel thieves, but three others escaped with over $100,000 in uninsured jewelry. If he didn’t have the gun, would they have have run before finishing him off? Hard to say, but it does seem they wouldn’t have had a problem with it.

Hat Tip: The Gun Shots

This is why guns and alcohol don’t mix. When you are drinking and playing poker at 3 AM and your back starts itching, do this, not this:

A Fort Worth man trying to scratch an itch on his back used a revolver and accidentally shot himself.

Jorge Espinal, 44, was drinking beer and playing poker around 3 a.m. Sunday in his home in the 3500 block of Montague Street, when he got up from the table and walked into another room, said Fort Worth police Lt. Kenneth Dean.

“He told officers he had an itch on his back and grabbed the first thing he could get a hold of, which was a revolver,” Lt. Dean said. “The gun went off.”

Uh, yeah. I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees a Darwin Award in this guy’s future.

Hat Tip: The Bitch Girls

I finally had time to review my Google Alerts and found this post at Second Amendment Right, a blog I then added to our Second Amendment blogroll. Writer Doug Giles offers eight reasons gun control is a bad idea:

Here are eight factoids I found that also cause backwards little old me to clutch my wood and metal friend called the gun:

1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
3. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

As the old adage goes: “With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.”

Hopefully this gives you an idea why I spend so much time talking about the Second Amendment. Without it, we don’t have the others.

Hillary’s on the attack again, this time in Indiana. She is raising questions about Barack Obama’s support of the Second Amendment, painting herself as a friend to gun-owners. The mailer asks:

Where does Barack Obama really stand on guns?

It then lists some different bullet points on how Obama has worked against the right to bear arms.

Hillary wants the voters of Indiana to believe that she is a fan of the Second Amendment. In fact, since running for president, she has almost embraced it. This from a woman who earns an “F” from the National Rifle Association. Gun Owners of America went even further, awarding her an “F-.”

From Votesmart.org:

• 2006 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Clinton a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
• 2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.
• 2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2003-2004.
• 2003 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).
• 2003 In 2003 Gun Owners of America gave Senator Clinton a grade of F-.
• 2002 On the votes that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative’s time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.
• 2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Clinton a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Obama may be no friend to gun owners, but Hillary isn’t either. Her attempt to portray herself as one only shows her attitude towards the voters. She is playing them for fools.

A Newsvine friend of mine, Cutty, announced on his column Saturday that a resolution* he wrote calling for “the repeal of gun-free zones passed by voice vote.”

Cutty gave credit to this blog for helping in his crafting of the resolution:

I want to particularly give credit to Bodhi1 whose All-American Blogger website provided links and information I needed to write the resolution.

Here is the article, which has the entire resolution and a few killer comments by me in the following thread.

^{* Now, if I can just get the legislators in my own state to notice me…}

Why not just come out and say, “I’m not in favor of people being able to defend themselves.”:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Any evidence of that, Barack? Any at all?

There are a few examples to the contrary of that sentiment, noted on Clayton Cramer’s Gun Defense Blog.

Pajamas Media notes an interesting statistic from Newsweek:

But what of Senator Obama’s specific assertion that more innocent people could get shot during altercations? If the senator wants to decrease the number of innocent people shot, he should start by taking firearms away from the state.

A commonly cited figure from Newsweek for well over a decade notes that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.” Upon reflection, such a figure makes perfect sense.

Civilians in “shall issue” states take intensive formal classes in advance of obtaining a carry permit, and in those classes the majority of the time is spent covering the legal liability, escalation, and justification for the use of deadly force. As a result, permit holders are very careful about deploying their weapons, as simply drawing a firearm when the threat is not warranted could lead to permit revocation and jail time. Far from being trigger-happy, CCH licensees are extremely reserved when compared to the general population.

This is just another feather in his liberal cap. One more reason among many not to vote for Barack Obama.

On last night’s podcast (which you can subscribe to here), I read a letter from a female college student who was begging to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

She writes:

I’m a UT-Arlington student. (I’m taking off this semester, but I’m returning in August.) I have to walk, by myself, across several parking lots. The campus is wide open to anybody who wishes to show up. Cooper Street, which basically runs right down the middle of the school, is a large and public road open to anybody who’d like to drive down it.

And though many of the people who live in the numerous houses near the campus are wonderful, law-abiding citizens…some of them are not. Not every person in the surrounding neighborhood is a good guy or gal. The criminals who live right off campus have very easy, free access to the unarmed students who are in the parking lots and on the streets.

There aren’t enough campus police officers to personally escort every student all over the campus. Until or unless we each have armed escorts, we’re responsible for protecting ourselves. But right now, legislation and school policies make this difficult. Very difficult.

Because, quite frankly, I have no delusion about what would happen if I were confronted by a criminal armed with a handgun. I have…pepper spray and a folding knife. Oh, yes, those are highly effective against handgun-wielding purse snatchers, rapists, school shooters and other, miscellaneous thugs.

This is not fair. I haven’t done anything wrong, but the law puts me at a distinct disadvantage re: my own protection. The State of Texas licensed me to carry a loaded .45 at church, in Wal-Mart, and at the hobby shop. But I cannot carry that same gun to classes. I’m the same law-abiding citizen no matter where I go, but for some reason, I am not worthy of self protection when I’m attempting to better myself through higher education.

I wrote about gun-free zones here, and still feel the same way. By disallowing the right to defend yourself, you are creating a high density population of victims. Students should not be banned from effective self-defense. The anti-gun lobby is powerful though, and even lawmakers in red-states like Oklahoma are wary of returning gun rights to students:

After strong protests, Oklahoma Senate leaders decided Monday to shelve a bill to allow military veterans and others with firearms training to carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

Sen. Mike Johnson, a Republican, said he and Sen. Johnnie Crutchfield, a Democrat, made a joint decision to leave the bill off the agenda of the committee that would debate the measure.

…

University presidents, faculty members and students had loudly opposed the measure, which sponsors said would improve campus security. Educators said it would have the opposite effect.

University of Oklahoma President David Boren had argued the bill would hurt recruitment of students and faculty. It also would pose a dilemma for police trying to determine whether a person wielding a weapon was a “deranged gunman or someone who thinks he is doing good vigilante work.”

Here’s a clue for these nitwits: “deranged gunmen” don’t use cover and concealment. They just come right at you. Let’s look at this logic another way. According to the powers that be, it is too dangerous for a person to carry a weapon, because if there is a shooter killing people on campus, the person with the ability to defend themselves might get shot by the police. So, instead, he will just get shot by the “deranged gunman” because he has been disarmed.

Brilliant.

Rep. Jason Murphey, a Republican, had introduced the campus gun bill. He said college officials used fear tactics against his measure, and he disputed their claim that it would have increased security problems.

Murphey and others argued that properly trained people with concealed handguns could avert deadly episodes like one last year that left 33 dead, counting the shooter, at Virginia Tech.

“If we can’t trust our veterans, who can we trust?” he asked.

Leftists and liberals don’t trust our veterans. That is why they push for bills like the Veterans Disarmament Bill. And the media is a willing shill for anti-gunners. Anytime there is a shooting, they cover the “deranged gunman” aspect, but ignore the shooter who stops the assault.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It’s what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, “Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school’s vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February’s Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun”.

It’s impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don’t usually report crimes that don’t happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute’s Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

Give the kids their guns back before another one dies. They have the right to bear arms also, and they are in a gun free shooting gallery. In fact, arm and train the faculty. If they don’t want a gun, they don’t have to have one. But allow those who do the access they need to defend themselves, and their students.

Hat Tip: Alphecca

An airline pilot’s gun fired on a plane this weekend, and no one knows why yet.

Well, I know why. Negligence:

The “accidental discharge” Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte did not endanger the aircraft or the 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants aboard, said Greg Alter of the Federal Air Marshal Service on Monday.

“We know that there was never any danger to the aircraft or to the occupants on board,” Alter said.

Where I come from, there are no “accidental discharges.” There are “negligent discharges.” For a gun to be in a position to go off, the owner has not fully accepted the responsibility of possessing that gun. This airline pilot should be disciplined, and possibly retrained, but I don’t think he’ll make this mistake again.

The fact is that almost 50% of airline pilots are ex-military and trained to handle weapons. The other pilots in the program will without a doubt be briefed on it, will learn from this mistake, and will take a look at how they are carrying their weapons.

But one thing this incident has already brought out of the woodwork are the gun-grabbers who hate the idea of a pilot having a gun. I heard the radio news interviewing people who were against the program and didn’t see any reason for a pilot to have a gun.

I can think of a few.