Sounds like they took the lyrics to Steve Earle's Copperhead Road just a little too seriously:

Federal and state agents swooped down Thursday morning on a group calling itself "The Free Militia" and uncovered a small arsenal of home-made weapons that included a rocket launcher, 130 hand grenades and 70 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) similiar to the kind used by insurgents against American GIs in Iraq.

[snip]

Officials said ATF agents encountered booby traps at one of the search sites.

The weapons cache also included a machine gun, a short barreled shot-gun, two silencers, numerous other firearms, 2500 rounds of ammunition, explosive components, and commercial fireworks. Agents also found more than 120 marijuana plants, Martin said.

I can only assume that the commercial fireworks recovered were used as components in the other explosive devices recovered.

Based upon the story so far, the now not-so-Free Militia sounds like it might be as much of a drug operation as much as an extremist group. Luckily, we have enough space in federal prisons that these gentlemen shouldn't be a problem for anyone for a very long time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Embarrassingly close to home:

Memphis police were looking Monday night for the thieves who stole seven weapons from a North Carolina SWAT team van parked in South Memphis.
Members of the SWAT team based in Raleigh, N.C., were eating at Interstate Bar-B-Que, 2265 S. Third, about 3:30 p.m. Monday when they realized their van had been broken into, said Lt. Jerry Gwyn of Memphis felony response.

The weapons stolen from my local SWAT team were:

3- Sig Sauer Model 551, .223 caliber, Fully Automatic Assault Rifles, in black
nylon cases (with several hundred rounds of ammunition)
2 - Remington Model 870, pump action 12 gauge shotguns
1 - Sig Sauer Model 229, .357 caliber semi-auto handgun
1 - Sig Sauer Model 226, .357 caliber semi-auto handgun

One of the SIG assault rifles--a real one, not the semi-automatic rifles the media has falsely labeled as assault rifles-- has been recovered after apparently being purchased along with some ammunition by one of the fine, upstanding citizens of Memphis.

The media has really dropped the ball on the most alarming aspect of this case, the flow of 30-round magazines onto American streets. The SIG 551, like most .223/5.56x45mm duty rifles, uses 30-round magazines.

Where are the magazines? Why aren't they being reported on?

Clearly, the American public can't handle the thought of such magazines being released, and the media is participating in a willful cover-up to minimize the hysteria that would surely sweep the nation if it was found that such high capacity magazines were allowed to run free.

Sure, the police say they are looking for the criminals holding two outstanding machine guns, a pair of shotguns, and a pair of pistols, but we know that the magazines are the real threat.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 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.

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.

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.

Somehow, I just don't believe that the reporter who wrote this San Mateo County Times story, Christine Morente, was actually there (h/t Michelle Malkin):

KIMBERLY SHRUM grips a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver and aims at a target 25 yards away.
Bang.

A hot shell casing hits the floor, joining hundreds of others littering the concrete at Jackson Arms Indoor Shooting Range in South San Francisco.

Just to point out the obvious to the oblivious, the scenario described above simply cannot happen.

Morente stated Shrum is firing a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. Shell casings remain in the chamber of a revolver until manually removed by the shooter; they cannot as Morente described "hit the floor" as a result of pulling the trigger. The automatic ejection of a fired shell is physically impossible with revolvers.

These is basic firearm design fact not open to discussion. What does appear to be open for discussion is whether or not Morente was actually at the Jackson Arms Shooting Range with Shrum as her article implies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.