Our thoughts and prayers go out this morning to the family, friends, and collegues of California Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, who lost her battle with cancer yesterday.

WaPo has the story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

From falsely reporting (ansd still refusing to correct) a claim that the expiration of the 1994 Crime Bill permitted the sale of high capacity and extended magazines, to claims that he purchased a pistol and ammunition online to citing incompetent experts, the "professional" media has consistantly made inaccurate, unsupported, and erroneous claims about the firearms, magazines, ammunition and firearms laws surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre committed one week ago today.

Should we perhaps consider a mandatory waiting period on the media's reporting of gun crimes... or would we best be served by making them pass a basic background and competence check before allowing them to write?

The pen is mightier than the sword, after all, so it is reasonable to make sure that those who use them are capable of using them responsibly.

Update: How about this for a new bumper sticker: "Michael Isikoff's keyboard has killed more people than Ted Kennedy's car, or my guns."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:51 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Lucianne, just another crazed conspiracy theorist:

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didnÂ’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be 'unsafe' to try.

'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn't excavate these sites, others would.'

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them — which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia — had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.

One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer's database was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the airbase. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.

In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.

Hoekstra, the CIA, and now this nut Gaubatz... who is he, anyway?

The problem the US authorities have is that they can't dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his 'courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow'. In 2001, he was decorated for being the 'lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence' and because his 'reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force's daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government'.

What a loon. No credibility at all.

And he poses an interesting delimma, if correct:

The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Quite true.

Should this Gaubatz guy, ISG and DIA supervisor Ray Robinson and other decorated "nutters" be correct, then Dubya is shown to be even more incompetent than both Democrats and Republicans have ever dared fear, and yet, Democrats couldn't call him on it, because they would have to admit he was right to topple Saddam in the first place, and they might have to back up that fact by confronting Syria... probably with "important action alerts."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:54 PM | Comments (61) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

It never ceases to amaze me how little self-avowed liberals are so purposefully ignorant about their own Constitution:

Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

The dolt who wrote this, Tom Plate, is not surprisingly the former editor of the Los Angeles Times.

He is hardly alone.

Another journalist, Walter Shapiro of Salon stated the following earlier this week:

Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

[snip]

Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans -- liberal or conservative -- writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to "freedom to drive" was more far important than the "right to bear arms." The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).

Alexander Hamilton, were he still alive today, may have chosen to respond to these craven abdications of responsibility by reiterating the following:

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

What Hamilton means, and both to Plate and Shaprio are too dim, too pampered, and yes, too cowardly to let cross their minds, is the fact that no system of government is perfect, including our own Republic. It is the very nature of government to attempt to consolidate power, usurping for itself the rights and powers afforded to other branches and levels of governments on some occasions, and always, always from the people themselves.

It is because of the creeping pervasiveness and the promised tyranny of government (the same tyranny liberals constantly accuse the Executive of trying to implement on every other issue facing this nation, but noticeably fall silent on here) that arms must always be held by the people, for the people, as Noah Webster observed in "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution."

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

The Second Amendment was never about hunting, or sportsmanship. The Second Amendment was, and still is, the singular Amendment guaranteeing all others. To dismantle the Second, as John Adams noted in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States,":

...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.

As goes the Second Amendment, so does the United States of America itself. Without a "well regulated militia"--"regulated" meaning practiced and competent with arms, the "militia" recognized as all people of military age and capability--the United States falls.

Noted Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution was never about self defense from criminals. To the Founders, that right was inherent, provided by the Creator above. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to enshrine in this nation the capability to take this nation back by force from a corrupt government, overthrowing it if necessary.

So wrote Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story in "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States":

The next amendment is: '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.'

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers...

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.

It is no accident that Justice Story chose to use the word "palladium" to describe the critical importance of the Second Amendment, which is defined as:

1. A safeguard, especially one viewed as a guarantee of the integrity of social institutions: the Bill of Rights, palladium of American civil liberties.
2. A sacred object that was believed to have the power to preserve a city or state possessing it.

The Second Amendment is our palladium, that sacred object that preserves our Republic as a nation of men instead of a nation of laws slaved to tyrants.

Story accurately pegs Plate, Shapiro, and others that do not wish to be yoked with the responsibility of protecting themselves, or their nation. It is a burden too heavy for them to carry, a responsibility they wish to be rid of. To a man, their ilk ignores the lessons history would teach, and call for the power and responsibility to be handed to the very state that would ensnare them.

They are sheep: fearful, bleating, unwilling to deal with the weighted cost of freedom. They would trade all their freedoms for the temporary illusion of safety.

I think we know how the Founder might have responded to that sentiment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1198 words, total size 8 kb.

I kid you not:

Speaking at Al Sharpton's National Action Network event in New York, Biden said President Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called "the politics of polarization."

Biden said Republicans have created an environment that brings bad things to the United States.

"I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what's gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn't happen accidentally, all these things," he said.

I'm surprised Biden didn't find time to work in bird flu, the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami, some 9/11 "truth," and John Edward's $400 haircut in there as well. Perhaps he's saving those for a rainy day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Allahpundit has been burning the midnight oil at Hot Air, and has some shocking updates on the Virginia Tech massacre perpetrated by a deranged student, Cho Seung-Hui.

First, NBC is now claiming that Cho had a staggering number of magazines, including extended 33-round magazines:

Virginia State Police say they're nearly done with their on-scene investigation at Virginia Tech. But inside the classroom building, investigators say they found a surprising number of handgun magazines, or clips — 17. Some, officials say, were high-capacity magazines that hold 33 rounds. That means, investigators say, that Cho may have fired at least 200 times during his killing spree on Monday.

As AP notes, this contradicts a WaPo story I cited yesterday, which said:

Cho reloaded several times, using 15-round magazines for the Glock and 10-round magazines for the Walther, investigators said...

I wouldn't be surprised to see that Cho had multiple magazines, but 17 is a huge number of full magazines to carry. If 15 of those were standard 15 round Glock 19 magazines, that would give him 225 rounds, plus 20 in the 2 10-round P22 factory magazines for a total of 245 rounds. If some of those Glock magazines were the extended 31 and 33-round magazines as NBC now claims, he could easily have been carrying in excess of 300 rounds, and that doesn't include any loose or boxed ammunition he may have had.

I'll try to run this down, and see which investigators are getting this story right.

Before I go on, however, I'm going to take issue with retired ATF agent Joseph Vince, who NBC quotes in their article:

In the photos Cho sent to NBC, he showed some of his ammunition — hollow-point rounds, purchased, officials say, in the weeks before the shootings. Law enforcement officials say hollow-points are generally considered more lethal.

Joseph Vince, a retired ATF agent, agrees.

"It's not something that you would need for home protection, because what you are trying to do is eliminate an immediate threat," Vince says. "The idea of killing is what this ammunition portrays to me."

Vince is unequivocally wrong in this instance, and I don't see how he could be misquoted.

Hollowpoint and frangible ammunition is precisely the kind of ammunition you would want for home defense and personal protection.

Vince seems to be implying that FMJ ball, soft-nosed, wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets would be a more favorable choice for home defense than hollowpoints or frangible ammunition, and that is not only wrong, but ignorant and I'd go as far as to say it is stupid.

FMJ ball, soft-nosed (jacketed bullets with an exposed lead tip), wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets are solid bullets that do not typically change shape much when encountering human-sized targets or most building materials. As a result, if someone has to fire one of these bullets at a person, only one of two things can happen:

• The shooter hits his target and the bullet over-penetrates, goes through his target, and runs the risk of going through building materials and other people with enough velocity to kill or wound someone else. Depending on the caliber, these bullets can hit a human and retain enough energy to completely pass through with enough force to go through several more sheetrock walls and still retain enough energy to kill someone else. Because these bullets typically go through a target while still retaining a great amount of energy, they are by definition not translating that energy into stopping power, and cause less damage to the primary target than would hollowpoint or frangible ammunition, which tend to expend more or all of their energy into the target, translating to more stopping power on directly comparable shots.
• The shooter misses his target, and the bullet goes through multiple layers of building materials. FMJ ball, soft-nosed (jacketed bullets with an exposed lead tip), wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets will typically retain their shape and energy far better than hollowpoint or frangible ammunition, and will therefore penetrate far more layers of building materials. Many solid centerfire pistol bullets will penetrate more than a dozen layers of sheetrock if they don't encounter something with more mass (a 2x stud, other materials, or a human body).

I recall at least one instance where a home owner in a home invasion scenario fired a FMJ bullet (.45 ACP 230-grain FMJ, I think) that missed his target, exited his home, completely went through another home entirely, and finally lodged in the far bedroom wall of a third home, above a sleeping girl's head. Had she been sitting up, she could have been seriously injured or killed.

Hollowpoints that function as designed open into a mushroom shape, and offer far more surface area for friction to affect once they start encountering other objects. They will not penetrate as far as the various solid bullet designs in identical circumstances as a result. If they hit their human target, the hollowpoint bullet transfers mote energy into a target, and stands greater likelihood of incapacitating the assailant when compared to identical shot placement from any of the solid bullet designs. Likewise, those hollowpoints that completely penetrate the human target will be more likely to stop faster than solid designed when encountering building materials, also because of the wider surface area.

In most (not all) home defense scenarios, frangible ammunition, while far more expensive than either the hollowpoint or solid ammunition designs, is the best option. When a homeowner confronts an assailant and is forced to fire directly at his target with no intervening material separating them, the frangible bullet fragments inside the target, transferring most or all of it's ammunition to its target on a hit. Tests on French alpine goats in the Strasbourg (sp?) tests confirmed that frangible bullet designs are superior to all other bullets designs in incapacitating a human-sized target, with various hollowpoint designs coming in behind, and solid designs behind hollowpoints in terms of effectiveness.

Joseph Vince, retired AFT agent or not, is horribly, horribly wrong here.

Allahpundit goes on to note that if Virginia had forwarded Choo's mental health evaluation to the federal government, Cho should have never been able to buy the Glock:

The magistrate ruled in 2005 that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.” He should have been in the FBI’s NICS system, but apparently states don’t always provide mental-health records as fully as they might or should.

If this CBS News story is correct, then Cho bought his Walther P22 online. Horrors!

Oh wait. He didn't. Media ignorance and misrepresentation once again rears its ugly head:

On this same day, the gun was shipped to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Va., where Cho picked up the gun two days later. The federally licensed store then did a background check.

First, the sequence of events in paragraph is backwards. Cho could only pick up the gun after the NICS check, and that is what occurred. CBS News ignorance, or purposeful design? You make the call.

The actual sequence of events run in direct opposition to what the article claims in the lede:

On Feb. 2, Cho Seung-Hui bought a Walther .22 caliber pistol from the online retail store www.thegunsource.com. It was the first and only time he ever used this particular Web site.

Without a Federal Firearms License (FFL), Cho could not directly by a gun through mail order or online, as the lede improperly states. It isn't until the final paragraph that we learn Cho did not buy the gun from the online site.

Instead, he chose the model he wanted and had it shipped to a business with a FFL, where he then went through the normal purchase process, as you would in any retail firearms purchase.

This tragedy at Virginia Tech is horrible, but the reporting of it thus far is showing us either the professional media is a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or are agenda-driven deceivers.

I'm not sure which possibility frightens me the most.

Update: Ace calls foul. Actually, he calls a word I won't use on a family-friendly blog, but you get the picture. Go read it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:21 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1416 words, total size 9 kb.

I'm not the only one noting the anti-gun dishonesty of Brian Ross and ABC News.

The Washington Times rips into them in "Inside Politics," calling the deceptive Ross and Dana Hughes blog entry a Media Misfire.

I'd add that they quote impeccable sources.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Ah, how interesting...

Another man — wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works — wanted to know when America is going to "send an air mail message to Tehran."
McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song.
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann. "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."

He stopped short of answering the actual question and did not say if he supports an invasion of Iran.

I haven't been this amused by a sung answer to a political question since I spoofed Phil Collins in 2005 in a story about a famous Cuban boy with the headline, It's No Fun, Being an Illegal Elian.

Now if would just launch into a redition of "Another one bites the dust" in reference to McCain-Feingold, I might just forgive him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

One of my liberal regulars made the following observation in this post, which got me thinking if there was a "right way" to implement the carrying of concealed weapons at colleges and universities:

The thing that surprises me about the news coverage is the idea that this can be blamed on the fact that this campus was a "no firearm" zone. I didn't know that there was a "fully armed" option when it came to college campuses.

Let's all cast our minds back to college, shall we? I'm willing to bet that every one of us was, to some degree or another, a horse's ass back then. Do we want fully-armed horse's asses on our college campuses? It seems like a bad idea to me.

The idea that more weapons on campus would solve this problem is counterintuitive. This guy was on campus, and he had a weapon, and he killed 33 people.

"Fully armed" college campuses are of course a horrible idea for the very reasons implied above, which are primarily a lack of maturity and the abundant flow of alcohol and other recreational drugs. It would be a recipe for further increasing recipients of the Darwin Awards, and that is something we are certainly against.

What is reasonable, however, is giving students, faculty, and staff who meet certain rigorous standards the ability to bring handguns on campus for the defense of themselves and others in extraordinary life-threatening circumstances.

Here is my proposal.

The minimum age to purchase a handgun is 21 years old in most states. By definition, this would limit concealed carry to mostly juniors, seniors and graduate students, non-traditional (older) underclassmen, faculty, and staff.

Limit concealed carry to students housed off-campus, and to faculty and staff members. Firearms would not be allowed in the dormitories. This is both a practical and legal consideration. In-dorm firearms could not be secured properly and uniformly, and should not be allowed.

Those students, faculty and staff must prove that they have secure storage for their firearms in their off-campus dwellings.

They must register the firearm they wish to carry on campus with the university police, and qualify with that firearm to show proficiency and safety at least once per calendar year. These requirements are already served by the current CCW licensing process in some states, and actually exceed the CCW licensing of others, who may only require a one-time qualifying performance. It is also comparable to the qualifying guidelines of most police departments.

In addition to these state guidelines, those faculty, staff and off-campus students who qualify under state CCW guidelines should also take a university-prescribed course detailing any additional campus restrictions, and then require them to pass a written test showing these understand both state CCW laws and campus restrictions.

Universities should adopt guidelines for acceptable firearms and ammunition for those who wish to carry on campus, using the following as a general outline:

• All university-approved CCW firearms shall be of modern design and sound mechanical shape, as shall holsters and spare magazine carriers;
• All firearms shall be of standard self-defense calibers, and these calibers are designated as follows: .380 ACP, .38 Special, 9mm Parabellum, .357 SIG, 40 S&W, .44 Special, and .45 ACP or comparable cartridges;
• All firearms using lower-powered cartridges (below .380 ACP) shall not be allowed;
• All firearms using higher-power cartridges (.357, .41, 44 Magnums, and above) shall not be allowed;
• All firearms using bottlenecked ammunition ( exception: .357 SIG) shall not be allowed;
• Only commercially-loaded frangible ammunition shall be allowed.
• Pistol magazines shall be of "standard length" (not exceeding the butt of the firearm but more than 1 inch, including any "bump" pads). The number of magazines would be restricted to one in the firearm and one spare magazine in an approved spare magazine carrier.

The guidelines above are very practical in nature. Certain calibers are simply better than others for CCW purposes, and the calibers cited above encompass the overwhelming majority of those in which defensive handguns are chambered. The frangible ammunition mandate may be new to some that are more familiar with full metal-jacketed (FMJ) and hollowpoint ammunition, and so may need to be explained.

Frangible ammunition is designed to fragment or disintegrate upon or shortly after contact. This significantly reduces the dangers associated with overpenetration, by transferring most or all of the projectile's energy into the target as the bullet fragments. While typically being more lethal to the target, frangible ammunition is not as likely to penetrate structural components (walls, floors, doors). Glaser and MagSafe are two of the most common examples.

As for carrying and storage guidelines, all students would be required to carry their firearms and magazines on their persons at all times while on campus (not in a desk, satchel, purse, or bookbag), and all faculty and staff would be expected to follow these same guidelines, with the additional provision that firearms can be kept in individual locked offices in university-approved, bolted-down gun storage safes for faculty and staff.

The requirements and restrictions outlines above are only a rough roadmap of reasonable outlines for a campus concealed carry program.

A similarly-implemented plan would create an atmosphere where the faculty, staff, and students can be confident that those who are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus are perhaps better trained than their CCW-licensed counterparts in the rest of society, and are arguably as well trained as some municipal police officers.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (63) | Add Comment
Post contains 911 words, total size 6 kb.

On MSNBC:

NBC News President Steve Capus said the network received the package in Wednesday morning's mail delivery and immediately turned the material over to FBI agents in New York. The FBI is assisting Virginia State Police in the investigation.

The package included a long, "rambling, manifesto-like statement embedded with a series of photographs," Capus said. The material is "hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced," he said.

It does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does include "vague references," including “things like 'This didn’t have to happen,'" Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

One of the photos.

It shows Cho with the murder weapons, the Glock 19 in his right hand, the Walther P22 in his left.

And in a related article:

Among the materials are 23 QuickTime video files showing Cho talking directly to the camera, Capus said. He does not name anyone specifically, but he talks at length about religion and his hatred of the wealthy.

I'm watching the coverage on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams as they discuss the case. The return address was "Ishmael," as written on Cho's arm. Cho's comments spoke of himself in the past tense.

I'm not sure what to say about this at this point.

Update: Ace glibly notes, "It really would have been a good idea to lock the campus down after the first shootings, eh?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:37 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Thanks to Ace and Allah, I was led to a Washington Post article that explains that the shooter at Virginia Tech used standard capacity magazines during his rampage:

The Glock was used in two shootings, first in a dormitory and then in Norris Hall more than 2 1/2 hours later, officials said. A surveillance tape, which has now been watched by federal agents, shows Cho buying the Glock, sources said. Both guns are semiautomatic, which means that one round is fired for every finger pull.

Cho reloaded several times, using 15-round magazines for the Glock and 10-round magazines for the Walther, investigators said, adding that he had the cryptic words "Ismale Ax" tattooed on one arm. Although there are many theories, sources said, no one knows what it means.

As I stated yesterday, the magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre were of standard capacity. Let me take this opportunity to do what the media has failed to do, and explain the difference between standard capacity magazines, magazines manufactured during the crime bill, and extended magazines as the terms relate to pistols.

Standard Capacity Magazines
Standard capacity magazines are those magazines designed by the manufacturer to fit within the magazine well in the butt (handgrip) of a pistol. The capacity varies from pistol to pistol, depending on how the firearm was designed. Most modern 9mm pistols are designed to house between 13-17 cartridges in each magazine without noticeably protruding from the bottom of the pistol.

This is a picture of a Glock 19 with a standard capacity magazine of 15 rounds, as designed by the manufacturer.

"Crime Bill" Magazines
A provision of the 1994 "Crime Bill" was the so-called "assault weapon" ban, and part of the ban placed a limit of ten cartridges on any magazine manufactured after the law took effect (it did not ban the ownership, sale, or purchase of then of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of standard capacity and extended capacity magazines manufactured prior to the law's implementation). Under this law, any magazine with more than ten rounds was declared a "high capacity" magazine, even though the overwhelming majority of these magazines were actually standard-sized magazines as designed by firearms designers. "High capacity" was and is purely a political designation, not a practical one.

Typically, the exact same magazine body were used in pre-ban, ban, and post-ban magazines, with internal block limiting the number of cartridges that could be loaded into magazines produced during the ban period (It was also relatively simple to remove the block from many magazines and return them to their standard capacity with a simple replacement of parts if one wanted to, but with so many pre-ban magazines for sale, few saw the need).

This is a picture of a Glock 19 with a AW-ban capacity magazine of 10 rounds.

Actually, it's the exact same picture, but as the ban and standard magazines still used the same magazine body, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the pistol's profile anyway.

Extended Magazines
As they relate to pistols, extended magazines are those magazines that extend perceptibly beyond the butt (handgrip) of the pistol. Extended magazines do not always mean high capacity magazines. Ten-round magazines for 1911-style .45ACP pistols were quite legal to manufacture between 1994-2004, but they still extended quite a bit beyond the pistol's natural butt.

This is a picture of a Glock 18 (the Glock 19's larger, machine pistol cousin) with an extended 33-round magazine that would fit the Glock 19.

Brian Ross of the "Blotter", ABC News, and Keith Olbercavemann were factually wrong is when they stated or implied that the 1994 law in any way restricted the sale, purchase, or ownership of any of the above magazines.

The law simply did not do what they claimed, and tens of thousands--perhaps hundreds thousands of such magazines--were bought and sold via retail purchase in stores, catalogs, and online during the 1994-2004 period. All the 1994 law did was ban the manufacture of magazines greater than ten rounds during that time period, which ultimately was a trivial matter. While the cost of some standard and extended magazines did rise considerably during the ban, they were never in short supply because so many magazines were already on the market.

Others and I have also noted that the size of the magazine also has very little to do with the carnage at Virginia Tech on Monday. It takes most shooters between 1-3 seconds to change an empty magazine for a full magazine, and there was no indication that Cho was rushed, especially as he had a second gun, presumably with a full magazine already loaded, at hand.

There are some forces in the media that are using this tragedy in Blacksburg to try to push a political agenda, and they are will to twist the truth or even lie to you in order to push it.

It's a sad, sick fact, but that is the media we have.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:52 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 6 kb.

SWAT teams wearing body armor and carrying machine guns stormed an administrative building at Virginia Tech this morning:

Virginia Tech students still on edge after the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history got another scare Wednesday morning as police in SWAT gear with weapons drawn swarmed Burruss Hall, which houses the president's office.

The threat of suspicious activity turned out to be unfounded, said Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said, and the building was reopened. But students were rattled.

"They were just screaming, 'Get off the sidewalks,'" said Terryn Wingler-Petty, a junior from Wisconsin. "They seemed very confused about what was going on. They were just trying to get people organized."

One officer was seen escorting a crying young woman out of Burruss Hall, telling her, "It's OK. It's OK."

To the best of my knowledge, Cho Seung-Hui killed himself with a bullet to the head on Monday morning after killing 32 innocent people and wounding many more, and he is still dead. Based upon thousands of years of human experience with one notable exception some 2,000 years ago, he is forecast to remain deceased.

So why is Virginia Tech still blanketed with heavily-armed and understandably tense police officers, many of which are dealing themselves with the aftershocks of trauma from the largest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history, just two days ago?

Part of the reason is to provide the public perception that something is being done and that the tragic massacre of two days ago will not be repeated on this ravaged, grief-stricken campus, a campus already awash in disbelief, shock, and fear. The officers are meant to provide psychological security as much as they are to provide physical security.

But as this morning's frightening false alarm showed, sometimes an overwhelming police presence in the wake of a traumatic event can instead lead to situation that increases or extends fears.

Today, Virginia Tech may very well be the safest college campus in the United States, but the massive display of force by police comes with its own costs.

Heavily-armed and no doubt highly-stressed first responders chasing ghosts and rumors are adding trauma to still fragile students like the young woman noted in the story above.

While a heightened police presence is still warranted to deal with the inevitable false alarms and to help provide a feeling of security, it is two days too late for the need of heavy body armor, and no current reason for police to walk around campus with tactical carbines. The time for such things has passed. On this day and in days forward, badges and "Smokie the Bear" covers should be enough. Enough, but not too much.

There is a balance, an equilibrium, an illusion of normalcy that must be regained for healing to begin.

Hopefully the officials at Virginia Tech will be able to find this equilibrium sooner, rather than later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

On the off chance that the ABC News staff of "The Blotter" is just ignorant of their subject matter and not nakedly pursuing a political agenda, I sent the following comment to their latest blog entry on the Virginia Tech shooting, in efforts to clear up a previous post that was patently false.

I'm still waiting for a retraction of the completely false story posted to the Blotter, "Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips."

Ross and Hughes falsely stated that "High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons."

The AW Ban provision of the 1994 Crime Bill in no way restricted the sale, purchase, or ownership of magazines of more than ten rounds during the 1994-2004 period, and only restricted the sale of high-capacity magazines manufactured after this date. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of high-capacity magazines were bought and sold during the 1994-2004 time period in retail stores, via catalog sales, or online, and all sales and purchases were completely legal.

Nor were Ross and Hughes correct when they said, "Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns."

These magazines were always available for legal purchase online (or anywhere else) since the World Wide Web was created. Their false implication that sales only began after 2004 is laughable, and completely false.

The blog entry was not only incorrect, it was deceptive, and showed a basic ignorance of the AW Ban and magazine provisions of the 1994 "Crime Bill."

ABC News and "The Blotter" owe their readership an apology and a retraction for this blatantly incorrect and perhaps purposefully fraudulent blog posting.

The media is allowed to occasionally make mistakes, but responsible journalists admit and correct their mistakes. It only remains to be seen if Brian Ross, The Blotter, and ABC News are responsible journalists.

NOTE: This comment has been cross-posted as part of a blog entry at http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

I somewhat doubt that Brian Ross and ABC News has the integrity to issue a retraction of their inaccurate and agenda-driven post, but at least I'll be able to show that I made the attempt to have them correct the record.

Update: I fought the dumb, and the dumb won. My comment was deleted by ABC News employees moderating "The Blotter." Obviously, pursuing a political agenda is far more important to ABC News than is actually reporting facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

I've roundly criticized ABC's Brian Ross for his blatant falsehoods regarding the "assault weapons" ban provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, but it appears that not only has ABC News refused to retract these false claims, it appears that the lie is spreading among other members of the ignorati.

Enter one of the least, shall we say, "mentally agile" disciples of this profession at MSNBC.

Allahpundit Ian has the video of Olbermann parroting of Ross' falsehoods.

At least one of the weapons used by the shooter is believed, as we said, to be in nine millimeter semi-automatic pistol, which would be like this one, with a clip designed to hold more than 10 shots. Clips like those were banned under the Assault Weapons Law of 1994, but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago.

I'll try this once more, making it so easy that even journalists can understand it.

High-capacity magazines were never outlawed. They were never illegal to own, buy or sell, person-to-person, in retail stores, catalogs, or online.

Part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the so-called Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a ban on certain cosmetic features found on some firearms. It was, in fact, nothing more than "scary-looking gun" law.

Banned "assault rifles" were easily made legal again by manufacturers who merely had to remove the offensive accessories, such as flash hiders, pistol grip-style stocks, or bayonets lugs, none of which affected the rate of fire, accuracy or velocity of the firearms in question. Older firearms arbitrarily (and inaccurately) deemed assault weapons by the ban that were already in the market were grandfathered in, and the new "post-ban" assault weapons sold quite well during the length of the so-called ban.

Another provision of the ban was a ban on the manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," which the law defined, again arbitrarily, as those rifle and pistol magazines that hold in excess of then rounds of ammunition.

Where Ross, ABC New, Olbermann and others are dead wrong is when they attempt to imply that the ban on the manufacture of new magazines of more than ten rounds was a ban on all high-capacity magazines. This is patently false.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of firearms in America primarily designed to use magazines of more than ten rounds. Most of these firearms were sold by the manufacturer with at least two magazines, and there was and is a robust industry for magazines for these firearms. By the time the "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" stipulation of the 1994 AW Ban provision was implemented into law, there were literally millions of such magazines in America, and hundreds of thousands more available for retail and commercial sale.

The AW Ban did not make owning nor selling such magazines illegal. As a result, magazines of more than ten rounds were available for uninterrupted sale during the entire ten-year life of the AW ban. It was never illegal to own, sell, or buy such magazines. All the ban actually did was to spur interest in purchasing such magazines, and manufacturers literally had to work overtime to meet anticipated demand prior to the implementation of the law.

As a result of supply and demand, once the "ban" (which it never was in any meaningful way) went into effect, some magazines increased significantly in cost, and some were even in relatively short supply, but they were always available in retail stores, catalogs and online, and they were always legal to own, buy, or sell.

I'm growing increasingly tired of journalists such as Brain Ross, ABC News, and Keith Olbermann spouting falsehoods, when they have obviously been too lazy--or perhaps just to agenda-driven--to simply read the law itself, or even point a web browser in the direction of Google.

These so-called journalists have forfeited their credibility by refusing to address the truth, and instead, decided to foist upon an unsuspecting public, blatant falsehoods to further a political agenda.

We've come to expect our media to be biased. We shouldn't have to deal with them blatantly, recklessly, and repeatedly lying to further their private policy beliefs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, it looks like the mullacracy is willing to supply just about any insurgency, doesn't it?

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.

"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.

He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.

If accurate, this seems to throw cold water on claims that Iran wouldn't support Sunni groups as willingly as they would Shiite militias.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

It is becoming abundantly clear that Brian Ross isn't the only member of ABC News that has the intention of using the Virginia Tech massacre to push an anti-gun political agenda, with extended magazines being mentioned again, even though there has been no corroboration that they played any factor at all:

It is unknown at this time if his guns had standard or extended clips, which, depending on the weapon, can fire as many as 30 shots before the gun has to be reloaded.

Actually, we do know for a fact that one of the weapons used, a Walther P22 that was his most recent purchase is only available with a ten-round magazine. Extended magazines for this pistol do not exist.

Extended magazines for Glocks (designed with the selective-fire Glock 18 machine pistol in mind, a weapon practically unavailable to American shooters) are capable of being used in Glock 19s do exist, but they are rather rare to encounter, and are typically found only online or through catalog order. They are rarely carried in most gun stores.

The reason is quite simple; Glocks are typically purchased for sport (target) shooting and personal defense by both civilians and police departments. When a Glock is fed an extended 31-round or even less common 33-round magazine, the weight of the extra 16-18 rounds dramatically changes the balance and weight of the pistol to make it butt-heavy, making it a bit more difficult to shoot, and the extra length and weight make it all but impossible to carry in any practical manner.

There is also no indication at all that he purchased his weapons, ammunition and accessories from anywhere other than the Roanoke gun shop where he purchased both pistols roughly a month apart, but as first voiced in Brian Ross' patently false "Blotter" blog entry yesterday and carried forth in this news article, the "deciders" at ABC News seem to have decided that they are going to hammer the extended magazine angle of this story, whether or not such magazines were even used.

"Truthy" used to be the standard for satire-based news shows. God help us now that it is ABC's new apparent standard for news.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

I've already slapped around Ross and ABC News for refusing to retract an entry on "The Blotter" that was remarkably fact-free, but Ross seems determined to further showcase his ignorance in yet another post today, attempted to tell us that one of the guns used was a 22 millimeter handgun.

Cho Seung-Hui bought his first gun, a 9 mm handgun, on March 13 and his second weapon, a 22 mm handgun, within the last week, law enforcement officials tell ABCNews.com.

Well, that would certainly explain why the casualty figures were so high. 20, 25 and 30 millimeter cannons are used as armament on helicopters, fighter aircraft and armored vehicles. Of course, no handgun could fire such a massive shell, outside of a Hollywood fantasy.

It is also worth noting that the ABC News picture associated with this blog entry is inaccurate as well.

It shows a picture of the Virginia Tech shooter as well as a Walther PPK or PPK/S in .380 ACP; a firearm and cartridge not used in the shooting.

The firearms used were a 9mm Glock 19 and a Walther P22 in .22 caliber.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

Allahpundit has the story on the shooter, who has been identified as Seung Hui Cho (CNN calls him Cho Seung Hui), a Korean national, a permanent resident of the United States and a Virginia Tech student.

I'm cross-referencing this to Curt at Flopping Aces, who noted in an update a post to a firearms message board, where a gun shop employee claims (site currently down) he sold Cho the firearms used in the shooting:

"Well, I'm screwed. They found a receipt in the gunman's pocket indicating that he bought the gun from me in March. ATF is at my shop right now. See you later, I'm on my way to the shop right now."

[...]"Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter's picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun? ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc. My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky. By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God."

I'm as disgusted as you probably are with the poster's focus on himself among all the real carnage around him, but that fact remains that he named "Mr. Cho" more than 12 hours before officials, so I think his claim that he sold these firearms to Cho is probably legitimate.

The firearms used in the shooting appear to be a Glock 19 (left, above), a 9mm pistol very popular with police agencies in many countries including the United States, and a Walther P22 (right, above), a .22 caliber pistol that is primarily used as a practice or target pistol. The Glock is typically sold with two standard 15-round factory magazines, a capacity fairly standard among comparable sized 9mm pistols. The P22 is typically sold with a pair of ten-round magazines.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

A day after posting a blog entry replete with falsehoods, and despite more than dozens of comments pointing out the factual inaccuracies of the story, Brian Ross and Dana Hughes of the ABC News blog "The Blotter" have yet to issue a retraction.

Does ABC News have an obligation to report facts, or is peddling a political agenda buttressed by lies their preferred stock in trade?

As I noted yesterday, the ABC News blog did not get so much as a single fact in their blog entry correct.

The Ross entry states that high-capacity magazines "became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons." This is a patently false statement, containing no truth at all.

High-capacity magazines have been around for more than half a century, and the sale of high-capacity magazines was not impacted whatsoever by the 1994 Crime Bill. These magazines were freely and commercially available, both in retail stores and online, without interruption, for the 10-year life of the ban, the decades preceding it, and afterward.

Ross implies that high-capacity magazines are now for sale on Web sites as a result of the ban expiring. Again, this is a deceptive, inaccurate statement.

The fact of the matter is that high-capacity magazines were always available for purchase (as noted above) both online, and in retail stores, without interruption.

I stated yesterday:

This Blotter entry by Ross and Hughes is a study in bias, wrapped around ignorance, justified by fear.

I'll now add to this that it is now quite possible that Ross' entry is a study in willful media deception as well. The Blotter's own moderated comments section contains dozens of posts warning ABC News that the information contained in the post was incorrect.

Brian Ross and Dana Hughes can't even get their facts right about the 94 AW law nor can ABC fabricate a legit connection between high capacity magazine availability and this crime.
Just the usual liberal bias against gun ownership.
Posted by: sssss | Apr 16, 2007 3:07:54 PM

---

For the record, the federal law that lapsed didn't have any effect on the sale of high-cap magazines. Sales of existing magazines with capacities over ten rounds was entirely legal after the 1994 Act. What was prohibited was the manufacture of new magazines.
Posted by: Jeffersonian | Apr 16, 2007 3:09:34 PM

---

The magazines (not clips) were available during the ban on them, as anything that had been manufactured prior to the ban was grandfathered in. The "ban" banned nothing and was democratic showmanship at it's worse.
You can't ban firearms in the US, they are a constitutionally protected right. Again, the shooter is at fault, not the tool he used.
Posted by: Brian Heck | Apr 16, 2007 3:25:08 PM

---

Lets stick to facts for a side story. This article implies that the person guilty of this used large capacity clips and assault style weapons. all unknown @ this time. As an earlier post stated - lots of small capacity magazines can sould like one large capacity. The Magazine size limit was no clips 10 or over could be manufactured for sale in the US. this didn't stop the existing quantity to be resold.
As to the description of spraying requires large capacity clips. Two handguns with 9 round clips would sound like 18 rounds going off rapidly. If the person was truely Spraying fire into classrooms then Large capacity clips were the least infraction. Automatic weapons as seen in hollywood flicks spraying fire downrange were banned in 1934 for private ownership. either the person had a license for the weapon (unlikely)or modified (in violation of the law) the weapon to fire automaticly.
Again I ask to stick to facts and not jump to conclusions about what may have exasperated the situation to promote a political agenda.
Posted by: glenn | Apr 16, 2007 3:26:18 PM

This is just a sampling of comments left in the moderated comments thread accompanying the Ross blog entry.
Every single one of these comments went past an ABC News employee. This ABC News employee either decided not to investigate the multiple inaccuracies noted by readers, or passed the information on to Ross, who also declined to address the multiple falsehoods contained in his post. In either event, Ross and ABC News have had ample time to correct a blog entry devoid of facts, and they have declined to do so.

This is media malpractice and what many would consider willful deception.

Facts and truth do not apparently matter to ABC News.

Pushing a political agenda is clearly their goal, even if that agenda must be supported by abject falsehoods.

Update: It is also worth noting that one of the weapons used did not have a high-capacity magazine by any definition, and the other is typically used with a standard 15-round non-extended magazine that is moe or less an industry norm for pistols of its size.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:23 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Holy cow! ABC News caught in a lie? I'm spiralling, spiralling!

Posted by: Dan Collins at April 17, 2007 08:36 AM (Ouds1)

2 ABC still hasn't come clean on its reporting linking the Anthrax terrorist attacks on American soil to Saddam Hussein. Some people still think the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Expect the falsehoods from which myths are made to become the facts. It'll take years of dedicated work sorting out the spin, lies, half-truths, propaganda, etc that spews forth daily from our government, media sources and instant pundits. ... Hang it up.

Posted by: Jethro at April 17, 2007 09:23 AM (LBpxw)

3 The Browning High Power was patented in 1927. It held 14 rounds 80 years ago. It is still being manufactured.

Posted by: Rick at April 17, 2007 09:44 AM (yweiJ)

4 High-capacity magazines have been around for more than half a century, and the sale of high-capacity magazines was not impacted whatsoever by the 1994 Crime Bill. Not entirely true- they became quite a bit more expensive once they stopped making new ones for the civilian market, by a factor of about 3x.

Posted by: rosignol at April 17, 2007 09:57 AM (ofA/v)

5 guns don't kill people. Only those with student visas who can buy guns and carry them into school buildings...how does a guy, not a citizen, buy a gun in the short time in this country and with at best a student visa (hey, can a terrorist student from Pakistan do this too?)... The silly posting every once in a while about some guy whos uses his legal gun to stop a theief hardly deals with what is going on in our country. I don't want to ban guns but I do want to see better controls put in place... Now, if you buy a car, it is registered, insured and checked yearly for you to drive it (license renewaql), but guns??? You can dump on this or that media outlet but there are now some 30 plus kids dead. And you can say that not much really happens at our American schools: only Texas, Columbine, and now here...how many will it take before you note a problem ? meanwhile, here http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3047369 where guns are owned and carried so all will be safe, we get this in res-ponse and at a college campus!

Posted by: joseph hill at April 17, 2007 10:00 AM (8ETZO)

6 Not entirely true- they became quite a bit more expensive once they stopped making new ones for the civilian market, by a factor of about 3x. It depends on the magazine. While prices did increase for some magazines (and yes some magazines did triple in cost), others remained virtually unchanged, or even went down slightly because of the glut of magazines on the market. During the entire ban you could routinely find 30-round 7.62x39 magazines for $10-$15, and 30-round 5.56/.223 AR-type magazines for $15-$20.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 17, 2007 10:06 AM (9y6qg)

7 It is not true that automatic weapons were banned from private ownership in 1934. That law put a $200 transfer tax on the sale of such weapons. Later, another law limited private ownership to the existing transferable stock of such weapons, and that's where it stands today. Automatic weapons are outlawed for private ownership in some states, as a matter of state law. In states where they are legal, purchase requires an FBI background check with fingerprints and sign-off by local law enforcement. The transfer tax remains at $200.

Posted by: Byron at April 17, 2007 10:09 AM (QDeFg)

8 Re: licensing drivers: how many people die in the US each year in traffic accidents? How many are drunk (despite laws prohibiting drinking and driving)? How many people are hurt because of willfull reckless driving, or by people deliberately attempting to harm others (I've seen this more than 10 times)? So, let's ban automobiles. Cars are a lot more dangerous in the hands of young people than guns are...

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 10:21 AM (sbsxG)

9 Josh there are rather significant controls in place concerning the purchase of firearms, many states (e.g. NJ and CA) impose elaborate impediments to personal ownership. I'd also point out that mass shootings are fortunately very very rare. Most have occurred during the contemporary era of gun control. Lastly car registration and drivers' licensing schemes tend to confirm the futility of regulation. You'll notice that mortalities related to vehicle accidents are almost entirely independent of driver and ownership regulations.

Posted by: Max at April 17, 2007 10:22 AM (7nVHV)

10 I'm in agreement with African American blogger, Villager, who said, "AP reports that the 32 people massacred in this episode is the “deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history”. MSNBC reports that this is the “deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.” I imagine you can look at the first paragraph in most of the reporting being done in your local area and find the same verbiage being used to describe the carnage in Blacksberg, VA." I wish that AP, MSNBC and other news outlets would be intellectually accurate and honest. The “deadliest mass shooting” or “deadliest shooting rampage” in our nation’s history occurred on June 1, 1921 in the Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Tulsa Race Riot, also known as the 1921 Race Riot, the Tulsa Race War, or the Greenwood Riot, was a large-scale civil disorder. During the 16 hours of rioting, over 800 people were admitted to local hospitals with injuries, an estimated 10,000 were left homeless, 35 city blocks composed of 1,256 residences were destroyed by fire, and $1.8 million (nearly $17 million after adjustment for inflation) in property damage. Our glorious Black Wall Street was destroyed in the carnage of that day. 39 people were officially reported killed, although most experts agree that the actual number of Black citizens killed during the riot to be around 300. You can read about it yourself here, here, or here. This isn’t an effort to compare horrendous situations. Rather, it is part of the continuing effort in the Electronic Village and elsewhere to ensure that OURstory isn’t ignored or forgotten as others write his-story. National columnist Jim Clingman recently wrote about his experience with eight of the survivors of the Black Wall Street murders. While we mourn for those murdered this week in Virginia, we ask you not allow the Tulsa Race War murders to be swept under the rug of distorted, revised, and repressed history. We must never forget, and we must not allow others to forget either.

Posted by: African American Opion at April 17, 2007 10:25 AM (jogPC)

11 In response to Mr. Joseph Hill's post: You don't need permission from state or federal government to buy a car, and you don't need a license to operate that car on private property. And, in any event, cars aren't a protected constitutional right. Your analogy falls flat.

Posted by: Basil Duke at April 17, 2007 10:25 AM (EH38Q)

12 Mr. Hill's comment is a study in anti-gun ignorance. Three data points do not a trend make. Let's see, in a nation of 300,000,000 people with an estimated 250,000,000 guns in the hands of 75,000,000 gun owners, a single gunman killed 35+ people at a college that BANNED GUNS ON CAMPUS. So obviously the problem here is gun ownership. Oh those students would be alive today if only there were more pointless feelgood gun laws on the books. The fact that if 1 student in 100 had been armed for self defense, the whole equation would have changed is just swept under the rug. Mr. Hill mentions Columbine, Texas, and now Virginia Tech and then asks the obvious question...how many will it take before you note a problem? Of course blinded by his bias he presumes the answer is more gun control, he misses the one cogent fact linking all three of these incidents: in each case possession of a firearm was banned on the campus in question. Staff and Faculty were not allowed to have guns for self defense at any one of these sites - only the security staff were. Each instance here is a microcosm of what the consequences of the anti-gunner's utopian fantasy. "Just disarm the sheep" they cry, "and the wolf will have no reason to attack, and if he does, the shepherd will protect us." It is the willful ignorance and bias of individuals like Mr. Hill that is truly dangerous. Because of people like him, Virginia Tech banned guns, and because of people like him there was no one on campus but local security to protect the students. When they failed the police were called, well now that worked out well didn't it? Guns were banned on campus and by relying on feel good legislation, campus security, and local police to protect the students we now have over 30 people dead. So of course the answer is to do more of the same, only faster and harder. Sadly, in their effort to shield their eyes from the reality of life, people like Mr. Hill are blind to the blood on their own hands.

Posted by: Robert Modean at April 17, 2007 10:44 AM (5nw/O)

13 I read one comment comparing guns to cars, what with registrations, inspections, etc... To my knowledge, driving a car (possessing a drivers licence) is a privelege, not a right. Gun ownership, however, is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. Big difference.

Posted by: Mike at April 17, 2007 10:47 AM (nBE5A)

14 Wouldn't the fact the high-capacity magazines were always widely available, even during the assault weapons ban, actually buttress the case in favor of MORE restrictions? I think the falsehood actually hurts the bias that you are alleging.

Posted by: TruthSeeker at April 17, 2007 11:13 AM (8jv8g)

15 Any body see this? From Allah at Hot Air... Now the ChiTrib has updated to add: “Cho also died with the words ‘Ismail Ax’ in red ink on the inside of one of his arms.” Did a little research on the name Hui -doesn't seem to mean much in Korea however in China Hui is a name associated with a large portion of the country's muslims.... Any one have any insight on "Ismail Ax"?

Posted by: Dhimmi Shelter at April 17, 2007 11:55 AM (N/UDU)

16 Guns vs cars. There is no way those can be compared. Cars are made for transportation. Guns are made for hurting people. And don't say they are made for protection, its an lethal object, which only protective ability is fear. The problem from the start on, is the fact that gun ownership is protected by the constitution, and hence very hard to get rid of. This "right" have created an abundance of weapons in America, for both law-abiding people and villains. Had there been enforced strict restrictions, registration and such, I do not believe that gun armed robberies would be have these high rate. Robberies with a but higher potential threat to cause injury and fatalities.

Posted by: Aaberg at April 17, 2007 12:00 PM (ls3Ze)

17 Hey, Aaberg - don't you find it interesting that the guns that are "made to hurt people" kill THOUSANDS fewer people than the cars "made for transportation"? Guess we better ban cars, eh?

Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 17, 2007 12:17 PM (sssqG)

18 A spokesman for Virginia Tech, Larry Hincker, crowed what a victory it was for the Virginia state legislature to defeat a bill which would allow those students and university employees to carry on campus: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-5065 Yeah, that worked out really well, Lar. Also, here's and interesting comparison based directly on news accounts between the Killeen, Texas Luby's restaurant massacre of 24 people (before conceal carry was legal in Texas) and two weeks later at a Shoney's restaurant where a licensed gun owner severely wounded and killed two thugs who were beginning to herd 20 people into a walk-in freezer. No innocents were killed. Of course your average liberal, to escape the inescapble conclusion, would claim this is an apples and oranges comparison since one episode took place at a Luby's restaurant and the other one took place at a Shoney's restaurant - different franchises! The comparison can be found here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446

Posted by: Hankmeister at April 17, 2007 01:47 PM (1Y1ew)

19 "Does ABC News or Brian Ross Have Any Integrity at All?" No.

Posted by: thebronze at April 17, 2007 02:50 PM (cqr3P)

20 This all begs the question: If gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, why should a law against concealed firearms stop anyone from carrying a concealed firearm? If it's concealed, who is going to know? If you have to use it, it's self-defense and no jury will convict you.

Posted by: TruthSeeker at April 17, 2007 03:07 PM (ca1kN)

21 Thanks for writing this piece. I mentioned Ross' article in a post today because it went up right in the middle of the massacre, and as I think I rightly pointed out, it was nothing more than using this mass murder to push his own agenda. I also contend that the article itself was pre-written, just waiting for a day such as yesterday to put it up. And no, ABC, Ross & Co. have no decency, let alone credentials as journalists.

Posted by: Michael Linn Jones at April 17, 2007 03:30 PM (EG68i)

22 "If it's concealed, who is going to know? If you have to use it, it's self-defense and no jury will convict you." Hogwash. Here in MA they'll convict you - not for shooting the bad guy, but for illegal possession. The anti-gun types are relying on the fact that pro-gun types are strong on law and order. They'll obey the laws, even the stupid ones. Hence the tactic of piling on more and more gun regulations - criminals will ignore them, but they're not the targets of the regulations. And hence the counter-tactic of insisting that we have enough firearms laws, start enforcing the ones we already have. They were never intended to be enforced - not against real criminals, at least.

Posted by: tom swift at April 17, 2007 03:31 PM (OrcrR)

23 Truthseeker: "If it's concealed, who is going to know? If you have to use it, it's self-defense and no jury will convict you." The point is, the people who obtain concealed carry permits are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens. We comply with the law. We follow the rules. And we are no danger to our fellow citizens. We don't want to break the law regardless of whether we are in danger of being caught.

Posted by: colburn at April 17, 2007 04:05 PM (E3YOM)

24 "Hogwash. Here in MA they'll convict you - not for shooting the bad guy, but for illegal possession." That comment comes from a mind that doesn't understand the difference between doing what's right or doing the right thing.

Posted by: Dave Hein at April 17, 2007 07:42 PM (c8ABA)

25 I linked from Virginia Tech: The Day After.

Posted by: Bill Faith at April 17, 2007 08:34 PM (n7SaI)

26 Ross is a tick turd. Last night, Primetime ran a piece by Ross on the gun laws of Virginia. Its purpose was to show how easy it is to buy a gun in tha state. The whole thing was a hit piece. He tried as hard as he could to make the gun store owner sound like a criminal. He even started by saying something about how four police had linked four guns sold at the store back to murders. Since he knew that everything was 100% legal, Ross had to manipulate sound bites to paint a different picture. The best effort was a quote from the owner that he had done everything by the book. The way it was inserted into the story, it came across as the dealer being defensive despite not having anything to be defensive about. he At one point, he even said that it took "less time than it takes to get a hairut" to buy a gun. ABC should be embarassed by Ross' reporting.

Posted by: Steve L. at April 18, 2007 07:15 AM (hpZf2)

27 Mr. Hill: Apparently the shooter, while not a citizen, was a legal resident and had lived in America for some time. The purchanse that has been traced was completely legal. Further, as others have noted, to use Texas, Columbine and VA Tech as your only data points for analyzing the effects of gun violence is incomplete. For example, why not also include the recent Salt Lack City mall incident. If you do so, you will find two glaring differences between SLC and Columbine/VA Tech: 1. fewer deaths (5 in SLC vs. 17/32), and 2. the presence of a licensed, trained citizen carrying a personal firearm that was able to engage and stop the shooter as soon as possible. The fantasy of snapping one's fingers and making all guns in America simultaneously vanish into thin air is not just a bad idea but impractical in the extreme. It is impossible to stop a determined actor from killing. The most effective way consistently demonstrated to limit the severity of the event is to reduce the time the killer has, and getting ordnance on target does this every time. AAO: I doubt many would argue the Tulsa Race Riot or Rosewood incident weren't tragic, but I think the unstated assumption of the "deadiest" moniker is that is the deadliest by an individual or small group (e.g. Columbine) as a single event.

Posted by: submandave at April 18, 2007 11:16 AM (UdYT0)

28 Dear Aaberg: Several flaws in your liberal viewpoint argument: 1) If strict gun controls had been the norm in our Constitution, then the only difference in our society would be that the criminals (who will never respect the laws of the land) would know that if they had a gun, there would be no one on the streets, or in a private home, capable of defending themselves. Therefore, less fear for the criminals, and likely even higher robbery/other gun violence on their part. 2) The liberal argument when the cars vs. guns issue is brought up, that cars are for transportation, and guns are to hurt and kill, holds no water. In the hands of responsible and law-abiding citizens, the primary purpose for a gun IS self-defense, and to protect one's self and family against predators with no respect for life. 3) A car in the hands of an irresponsible driver is a 3000lb. lethal weapon, capable of far greater death and destruction than a typical handgun. The relationship between a car and a responsible vs. irresponsible driver, is exactly the same as that of a gun in the hands of a responsible vs. irresponsible citizen. Therefore, if you make the argument that guns should be banned or strictly controlled, then you would by default be making that same argument against cars. I suggest you go by and rethink your logic in your argument before objectively forming an opinion!

Posted by: Dave at April 23, 2007 09:04 AM (sD2KZ)

29 Sorry I missed this dust up. Ross shot his mouth off in UK yesterday, interviewing Scottish anti-gun nuts who can't understand why we won't ban all hand guns like they have. You and your commenters have hit many of the major points. There is an inverse statistical relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. The more private citizens who own and carry guns, the lower the incidence of murders, voluntary manslaughters, assaults and forceable rapes. Compare Washington DC, where hand guns are banned to Kennesaw GA where gun ownership is required. One crime rate going up; one crime rate coming down! 99.8% of all firearms and 99.6% of all handguns are never used in a crime. Since 1991, the US has added 70,000,000 privately owned firearms and right-to-carry states have increased from 17 to 37. There are more guns, more gun owners, more owners carrying, and more people living in areas where people are carrying weapons. What about violent crime? It is down by 35%. Va Tech is a gun free zone. If someone in Blacksburg had had a weapon and shot Cho when he pulled out his guns, those kids and their profs might be alive today. The administration at Virginia Tech is in some legal trouble for insisting on the campus ban even after an armed fugitive was loose on campus last fall. A fine job the university did protecting its campus. If I were a college student, I would carry a concealed weapon regardless of the school's policy. Funerals are more expensive that Glocks.

Posted by: arch at April 24, 2007 04:27 PM (n6Q1C)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Brian Ross and Dana Hughes prove just how little they know about firearms, laws related to them, and the effects of both with their knee-jerk response to today's Virginia Tech shootings, where they attempt to place the blame not on the shooter, but on high-capacity magazines:

High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

"High capacity magazines read extreme firepower and gusto. Stock Up!" is the headline of one of many gun shop Web sites.

Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but gun experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.

"When you have a weapon that can shoot off 20, 30 rounds very quickly, you're going to have a lot more injuries," said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It's not one or two shots at a time when you're putting 20 bullets, spraying them into a classroom or into a dorm room," Hamm said.

This blog entry is so ignorant and factually incorrect on so many levels that ABC News should immediately print a correction or a retraction, and require Ross and Hughes to go to a basic firearms safety class before ever being allowed to write about the subject again.

They state:

High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

This is absolutely and totally false.

First, "clips," literally thin strips of metal designed to hold cartridges for ease in loading, were never addressed in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

For that matter, the law never banned existing high magazines either, "magazines" being the word that Ross and Hughes needed, but were too technically ignorant to use.

As a matter of practical fact, if Hughes and Ross had bothered to speak with any experts at all, they would have discovered that high-capacity magazines were never in short supply prior to 1994, and the commercial sale of high-capacity magazines was never slowed, much less stopped, during the ten years the ban was in effect from 1994-2004.

The commercial sale of high capacity magazines was legal during the ban, and the supply of pre-existing magazines was so plentiful that prices for many magazines never increased. In some instances, prices actually dropped.

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Again, Ross and Hughes are lazy and factually incorrect.

Large commercial sporting good stores sold high capacity magazines during the entire life of the ban, because the ban never affected the sale of existing magazines, and there were warehouses full of them. Nor are we limited to 40-round magazines (not clips, which are something else entirely). If you want a 100-round magazine, you can have it shipped the very next day. You always could.

"High capacity magazines read extreme firepower and gusto. Stock Up!" is the headline of one of many gun shop Web sites.

Horrible grammar, perhaps, but at least they know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Online and commercial retail stores, again, have never been affected by the ban in any measurable way, nor have been consumers.

Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but gun experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.

There are tens of million of people in this nation with "large quantities of ammunition." Does that mean we're all criminals in the minds of these ABC reporters? Probably.

The fact of the matter is that high-capacity magazines were never difficult to get, and that even standard capacity magazines would have made very little difference in today's tragic shooting. For anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with their firearm, changing a magazine takes less than three seconds. Those who practice can make a magazine change in less than that. Whether a shooter has two 15-round magazines or three 10-round magazines, the outcome would likely be very much the same.

Once again, Ross and Hughes spray rhetorical blanks, and hit nothing.

But they aren't quite done yet: now they need an expert opinion to provide the illusion of competence and objectivity.

Send in the clown.

"When you have a weapon that can shoot off 20, 30 rounds very quickly, you're going to have a lot more injuries," said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It's not one or two shots at a time when you're putting 20 bullets, spraying them into a classroom or into a dorm room," Hamm said.

I sholdn't have to point out the fact that their "expert" is from the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a viciously anti-gun group, who is as light on the facts and as high on rhetoric as is Ross and Hughes. Note how Hamm purposefully uses the word "spray" to create an image of machine gun fire, even though machine guns are strictly regulated, and no one is even suggesting one was used in Blacksburg. IÂ’d also note the obvious and undisputed fact that a weapon with a high-capacity magazine does not fire any faster than one with a regular magazine.

This Blotter entry by Ross and Hughes is a study in bias, wrapped around ignorance, justified by fear.

I don't think that is how ABC News should run their newsroom, but then, that is their decision to make.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:23 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 6 kb.