Gun Nuts Media

The police in the Philippines are apparently taking away their officer’s guns, and issuing them whistles instead.

“We’re trying to go back to the basics. We’ll be training our police officers to blow whistles instead of firing their handguns in the air to stop crime,” he said.

What you have there is a training issue.  Any idiots remotely conversant with the laws of physics should know that things that go up in the air come down – and with bullets they often come down with some force.

A bullet fired straight up at a 90 degree angle is not going to return to earth with enough velocity to kill – this is because it accelerates straight up, then eventually stops, and reverses it’s fall, accelerating only to its terminal velocity on the return flight.

However, a projectile fired in the air at any kind of angle is going to fly in a parabola, and will likely retain enough energy to kill or injure.  This is why it’s just a stupid idea to shoot guns in the air – that bullet has to come down somewhere.

I think it’s funny that cops are losing their guns and getting whistles – but at the same time it’s kind of sad that their cops aren’t trained enough to know better than to shoot their firearms in the air.

Thanks to a poster on clanBOB I am treated to this magnificent story from CNN, which in terms of screaming hysterics and silly, incorrect, or otherwise misguided information rivals the CBS evening news piece that was so thoroughly ripped apart by the blogs.

The issue in this story regards a 14 year old in PA who was allegedly planning a “Columbine type” event at his local school.

Police in Plymouth Township near Philadelphia took the boy into custody after a search of his home turned up a number of weapons, including a 9 mm rifle with a laser scope and dozens of air guns, said Deputy Chief Joe Lawrence.

…

In addition to the weapons, authorities found a hand-painted Nazi flag and a video about the Columbine shootings, District Attorney Bruce Castor said.

Now, I obviously think that anyone shooting up a school is a bad thing; and I am glad that this was prevented.  My issue isn’t so much with the actual content of the story, but rather with how it’s presented by CNN.  For example, what exactly is a “laser scope”?  I have heard of laser sights, which project a visible dot onto the target, and I know what a scope is, but I’m pretty sure that there isn’t such a thing as a “laser scope”.

Additionally, look at the picture attached to the article.

If those are the actual “guns” confiscated – and there’s nothing that indicates that, then what you’re looking at is a table full of Airsoft guns, which fire a plastic pellet at sub-300 fps.  I’m not really surprised that CNN should show you a table full of scary looking guns, because it fits their M.O. perfectly.

If you watch the video, the hysterics only get better (worse?).   They describe the kid’s room as having butterfly knives, violent video games, and a couple of other scary sounding buzzwords.

As I said, I don’t have a problem with the police arresting this kid.  If he was legitimately planning on hurting people, and they cops have enough actual evidence to prove that, then I’m fine.  My problem is with the way it’s reported – I get very tired of the media using misleading tactics and in some cases, outright lies to induce hysteria in the masses.  Showing a table full of scary looking guns which aren’t actually guns is pretty misleading, as it makes it look like this kid had an arsenal full of automatic weapons, when in fact all he had was one 9mm carbine, and a bunch of air guns.

And sometimes, I get an email that I want to share with my readers.  I got this email in response to my most recent post regarding the situation of Shirley Katz, the teacher who is suing her school in Oregon so she can carry her concealed firearm where she works.

I’m going to break the email into chunks and address them one at a time, mostly because it’s easier to follow that way.

Easy answer: I’m really curious what reasons were given when Oregon’s legislature threw out that bill banning concealed carry in any school. If they declared it was because they wanted schools to be permitted to decide for themselves, then I don’t think Ms. Katz should win. Let her transfer to a school that has different rules.

According to a friend in Oregon, the bill was tossed because state law explicitly states that employees are allowed to carry their concealed firearms in public buildings.  As far as the 2nd sentence, I sort of agree.  If the school is a private school, funded by the tuition fees of the students attending, the school board has the right to enact whatever policy they want.  However, if the school board is elected by popular vote, and the bulk of school’s funding comes from state funds, then they should be accountable to the same laws that the rest of the state is accountable to.

More complicated response: Schools have traditionally been allowed to restrict activities that are entirely legal off school grounds. It really doesn’t matter why Ms. Katz wants to carry a gun, the main issue is why the state should override individual school district regulations on firearms when it chooses not to/can’t on items like dress code, allowing pregnant students to attend regular classes, or bringing purses or cell phones to school.

Actually, that touches on one of the issues I often have with public schools, which is their autocratic nature.  To me, when a school receives the bulk of its funding via state money – your tax dollars – then that school is no different than any other government organization, and should thusly be held accountable to the taxpayers.  If a school district decides to implement a dress code policy, they should have the approval of the majority of the parents in the school district before they enact that dress code.  At the same, I don’t think that a school district should be allowed to have policies that contradict state or federal laws.

A secondary issue is whether the schools could penalize people for firing guns on campus, even if they couldn’t prohibit people from bringing them. (Like some schools ban cell phone use but not cell phones.)

Well, they wouldn’t need to – in most jurisdictions that I’m aware of, it’s illegal to discharge a firearm outside of designated target ranges unless it’s in self-defense or for hunting.  So passing a school regulation that punishes people for shooting a gun would be redundant in most situations, because (generally) shooting a gun at people is a crime anyway.

A third issue might be, if concealed carry permits override the “no guns” regs, then why not open carry permits? In which case, all specific school regulations on fire arms should be removed because all that’s left is covered by blanket school regs banning people from breaking state and federal laws in general. (Nearly, anyway. I think they’d still be able to ban authorized sales of firearms under ‘no conducting outside businesses on school property’, but that’s about it.) Oregon certainly has the power to do that, but if I were the district court judge, I’d send this straight to the state supreme court rather than try to make a statement at a lower level.

I’ve mentioned that I’m a fan of open carry, and I wouldn’t mind seeing in this situation.  I also wouldn’t mind if schools were forced to remove some of their zero-tolerance policies, because 1) they’re often redundant, and 2) bringing a squirt gun to class should not result in expulsion.  For example, in Oregon it’s already illegal for a minor to posses a gun without the express consent of a parent; and then only for legal activities such as hunting or target shooting.  Also, that possession only applies to rifles and shotguns – minors are not allowed to posses handguns.

But say she does win, what would this mean for schools that have security checks? It’s not exactly concealed if you set off alarms, nor if you suddenly stop being required to go through metal detectors or empty your purse — at the very least, everyone would know that you have a permit and have informed the school of that fact. Also, just because an individual would be allowed to bring a gun to school doesn’t mean she isn’t still banned from bringing other contraband that might show up during the existing checks. Would the state help fund extra training for security personnel to address this, if needed? If not, do those schools have to care that not funding it themselves circumvents the spirit of the permit?

Off the top of my head, if a school were to allow teachers to carry concealed, it should be via a program similar to the Federal Flight Deck officer program – which allows airline pilots to carry handguns in flight.  A pretty simple solution would be to have a separate entry for teachers, and a list of teachers who have licenses – then they get screened for all the standard contraband.  It’s also worth noting as an aside that concealed carry permit holders are usually among the most law-abiding citizens you’ll ever meet.  It wouldn’t exactly be difficult to train someone to check a employee ID badge against a list, and then give them a pat search/purse check.

Also, what would a win mean for an 18-year-old student with a permit? IMB, if a state-issued permit overrides school regulations for teachers and visitors, then it also ought to for students. But I wouldn’t envy whoever gets to explain that at the next school board meeting.

Very few states allow people under the age of 21 to apply for concealed carry permits – Oregon is not one of those states.  In Oregon, an 18 year old is quite expressly forbidden by state law from carrying a concealed firearm.  If this were to become a nationwide issue, I would actually support raising the age for concealed carry permits country-wide to 21.

Hope I answered your questions – this issue is a complicated one, in no small part because my generation has been indoctrinated with the mantra of Guns in Schools = Bad for the great bulk of our lives.  Having been in high school when Columbine occurred, I suppose it’s only natural.

But it’s also not right.  While the media would love for you to believe otherwise, there is a huge difference between an adult with a concealed carry permit bringing their firearm to school, and a 17 year old kid with a Hi-Point tucked into his waistband.

With knowledge – access to facts and statistics from reliable sources is often our best weapon when debating anti-gun people, or when trying to win over converts to the pro-gun argument.  With that in mind, I wanted to share this website at the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) with you.

It’s actually quite useful, as it can sort death statistics by type, whether they’re accidental or intentional, you can sort by age, ethnicity, or even gender.  As I said, a quite useful resource, especially when presented with one of the Brady Bunch’s favorite canards: Kids and guns.

For example, this quote is on the Brady Campaign’s website.

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That’s more than 10 young people a day.

Now, if you’re like me then that statistic (aside from being old) smells like fish.  Including 16, 17, 18, and 19 year olds that have been murdered is a great way to skew  your “statistic”.  The problem is that 16-19 year olds are often killed during various violent activities; and while at times the teenager may be an innocent victim, there are plenty of times when they are a participant in the violence.  So, using the handy tool I linked to earlier, I want to see how much that “statistic” is padded by homicides.  So, I’ll set my search parameters to first “unintentional”, age 0-19, and the year as 1999 (you can’t search earlier) I get the following number:

Number of Deaths	Population	Crude Rate
214	80,039,972	0.27

Now, that’s just for accidental deaths.  Let’s add in suicides from the same age group for 1999.  Here’s the number for suicides:

Number of Deaths	Population	Crude Rate
1,078	80,039,972	1.35

If you add them up, it comes to  1,292 suicides and accidental deaths from firearms in 1999.  Running the homicide numbers for 1999 gives me this result.

Number of Deaths	Population	Crude Rate
2,010	80,039,972	2.51

As you can see for yourself, by including murders in their statistic, the Brady’s can pad their stats by almost double the number of accidental deaths and suicides combined.

I think that any death (firearms related or otherwise) is a tragedy, which is why I find especially repugnant that the Brady Campaign would inflate statistics in such a manner.  Contrary to what they would have you believe, the one group of people in the country that is doing the most to prevent accidental deaths from firearms is gun owners.

You can’t prevent accidental deaths by closing your eyes and pretending that guns don’t exist – even worse than that is that many parents unintentionally endanger their children by not teaching them anything about guns.  Think about it for a minute – say your kid finds a gun that someone dumped, or something silly like that.  If everything they’ve ever learned about firearms they learned from TV, there is going to be a significant amount of curiosity; curiosity is dangerous because it could lead them to handle the firearm.

Now, take the kid and give him basic firearms safety instruction.  Now, firearms are no longer a mysterious symbol of power, but rather just another object, not unlike a car that the child has been taught to respect the danger involved.

Telling your children “never touch guns” and not actually teaching them anything about firearms is a surefire way to ensure that the first time your kid sees a gun and you’re not around, they’re going to start messing with it.  Magical thinking never works.

Shirley Katz, the school teacher in Oregon who is suing the school district to allow her to carry her concealed firearm in class will go before the judge on Thursday.  I’ve covered this story previously and it’s one I continue to follow with some interest.

The legal issue as argued by Ms. Katz’s attorneys is that Oregon state law allows people with CCW permits to carry in public buildings; additionally Ms. Katz has a restraining order against her ex-husband, but is worried that he could/will show where she teaches to attack her.

The AP article I linked to doesn’t have a whole lot of new information, but at the end there is a great quote from Ms. Katz that I really want to share.

Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.

“The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you’re carrying,” she said. “So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target.”

That pretty much sums up concealed carry right there.

To all holders of Federal Firearms Licenses:

Stop talking to the press.

I’m not kidding either; because despite your best intentions, there is a pretty good chance that you’ll be taken completely out of context and made to sound like you’re supporting gun control or something like that.

Not only is that detrimental to your business, but it’s bad for the sport in general.  So unless you’re really well spoken and used to doing business with the media (and thusly are aware of their nefarious trickery) then just say “no comment”.

Because they will ask you about private sales, or if there are flaws in NICS,  or assault weapons; and then if you answer truthfully and honestly, it will be reported in the papers/tv as “Gun shop owner supports private citizens selling Uzis out of cars” or something idiotic like that.