Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Charlton Heston

Posted on by

A war put off is not a war avoided.

Charlton Heston
[I don’t know the context of when this was said but it probably wasn’t meant to be the one I am thinking of.

For decades there have been gun owners who were willing to “give them what they wanted” so they could keep their hunting rifles or shotguns or some other firearm not currently under attack by the bigots. Every concession with the enemies of freedom emboldened them. Every inch of territory they owned gave them more legitimacy. Just look at California, Chicago, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York City, and Washington D.C.

How many lives have been lost or ruined with the rampant crime enabled by disarming those victims? And the enablers make no effort to hide the fact they are nothing but petty tyrants ready to shoot those that question their decisions. They should have been slapped down 70+ years ago and countless lives, billions of dollars, and millions of man hours could have been saved.

I understand that sometimes you have to retreat and give them a
little ground so that you don’t lose the entire war but we must do our best to prepare the
ground so that reclaiming it will be easier when we return with
greater forces. With the “assault weapon” ban of 1994 we did just that.
Our side insisted the legislation include funding on studies of the effectiveness of the ban and an expiration date. Both of those helped reclaim the territory in later years.

The battle over NFA34 was lost without much resistance put up by gun owners and gun organizations. We were completely unprepared–condition white.

With the political climate of 1968 the battle was tough, our preparedness was pathetic, and we lost. We must remember these losses and never let ourselves be unprepared. We now have the initiative and we should not drop it. The battle in the courts will last decades just as the battle in the legislatures has lasted decades.

But always remember putting off the battle does not mean that it is avoided. It may require a strategic and temporary retreat but just as there is no compromise between someone intent on raping or killing you there is no compromising with the enemies of liberty.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

As if violent crime is not a concern to us or, as some anti-gun people claim, pro-gun people actually support criminal use of guns.

Quote of the day–Christopher King

Posted on by

America is a collection of stupid people. You will not try to reason with them. You will resort to the most shameless non sequiters, strawman arguments, appeals to vanity, and whatever all else in shaping public opinion. Here is my argument against gun control:

  • It is a statistical fact that only beautiful people own guns. You will never in a million years see an ugly person with a gun. Ergo, if you see a person with a gun, that person is attractive.


  • Gun owners have more sex than non-gun owners.

  • Practicing with guns weekly results in fewer per capita incidents of male pattern baldness. It’s the lead in the bullets, maybe.

  • Those in favor of gun control are little peepee pants pansies. In a state of nature, they would be among the first to be killed or eaten. And you don’t want to be eaten, do you?

  • Gun owners’ girlfriends have bigger tits and put out more readily. This is a publicly known fact.

Christopher King
June 13, 2010

I’m done trying to have rational debates. I will now resort to pure emotion
[In case someone tries to use me as an case in point to refute the FACTS (proof by vigorous assertion) above–I didn’t start shooting regularly until after I went bald. Other than that I could be used as proof of the above.–Joe]

The email

Posted on by

Robb Allen forwarded me the email about the Brady Campaign that contributed to a lot of the blog traffic about the Brady Campaign membership list. It is an exact copy of this.

Wife Barbara Scott especially likes this picture of Paul Helmke which can be found in the email:

In our family we refer to this type of humor as “Scott Family humor”.

You never know

Posted on by

Sometimes it is a surprise when I post something I think is fairly ordinary and it gets a lot of traffic.

Other times when I make a post I know it’s going to get some links and more traffic than most. A year or so ago I had decided that if I wanted to take the time (typically it’s a two to four hour investment so it’s not something I have time to do everyday) I can write a high traffic post at will.

When I stumbled across the Brady Campaign membership list on sale a couple weeks ago I thought I had something really big but the response was a little disappointing. Yes, I got more traffic than normal with about 1000 visits that day instead of the normal 500 to 700 but it wasn’t quite as what I had expected. [Shrug] Okay, so it’s not as interesting as I thought it was.

That was two weeks ago.

Friday afternoon Detroit Gun Rights Examiner Rob Reed made a post about it, Kurt Hofmann followed up with one of his own and things exploded. Numerous forums and email lists copied them, a few more blogs picked it up, and my Sitemeter entry page has looked like this for nearly two days:

  1 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  2 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  3 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
  4 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  5 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  6 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  7 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  8 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
  9 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 10 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 11 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 12 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 13 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 14 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 15 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 16 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 17 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 18 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 19 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 20 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 21 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 22 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 23 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 24 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 25 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/
 26 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 27 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 28 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 29 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 30 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 31 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 32 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 33 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 34 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 35 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/12/05/boomershoot-and-survivalists/
 36 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 37 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 38 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 39 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 40 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 41 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 42 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 43 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 44 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 45 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 46 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 47 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 48 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 49 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 50 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 51 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 52 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 53 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 54 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 55 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 56 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 57 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 58 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 59 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 60 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 61 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 62 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 63 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 64 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 65 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 66 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 67 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 68 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 69 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/10/anti-gun-people-lying-with-statistics/
 70 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 71 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 72 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 73 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 74 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 75 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 76 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 77 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 78 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/12/cops-respond-to-brady-campaign-troubles/
 79 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 80 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 81 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 82 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 83 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/08/
 84 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 85 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 86 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 87 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 88 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 89 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 90 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
 91 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 92 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 93 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/01/07/firing-up-the-propaganda-machine/
 94 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 95 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 96 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 97 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 98 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 99 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/
 100 
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/27/brady-campaign-membership-numbers/

My visitor and page counts:

Notice that on the 18th of last month when I originally made the post there was a little bump but not that much. Compare that to yesterday and what continues today.

I think the difference is because I had a rather narrow perspective on the significance of the data I found. Things clicked for Reed and Hofmann.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

This assumes so many facts not in evidence that it almost doesn’t deserve a response. I would start with the assumption the dominate use of guns is criminal and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

Handgun Control Inc. often quotes from Cruikshank, which says, “the bearing of arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution.” They never quote the next sentence from that decision: “Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.“

The Court stated in Cruikshank that since the First and Second amendments limited only the Congress they did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent newly freed black slaves from holding political meetings or having guns. It boggles the mind to hear so-called “Liberals” proudly cite the Cruikshank decision.

Neal Knox
October 9, 1987
The Gun Rights War, page 74.
[In 1992 or 1993 I received a mailing from HCI with this quote in the letter.* That letter sealed my relationship with them. It was like remembering where you were when you found out President Kennedy had been shot.**

I was in the bathroom next to the kitchen in our house in Moscow Idaho. I remember setting the letter down on the counter next to the washbasin. I was stunned. Had the Supreme court really said the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says? I was very shaken by this. HCI wouldn’t put something that profound in writing if it weren’t true. They couldn’t. It would be devastating to their cause if it was found out they had lied. Right?

I don’t remember how I checked up on it. But within a few days I had discovered what Knox had reported in 1987. HCI hadn’t really flat out lied, they “just” didn’t tell the whole truth. It had to be deliberate misinformation on their part. It was, as Knox said, the very next sentence which refuted their point.

This infuriated me. I have not forgiven them. Changing their name to “The Brady Campaign” did not help. That they used Jim Brady’s injury as a justification for a law that would not have prevented, in even the most optimistic scenarios, the tragic shooting of Jim Brady and President Reagan reinforced my opinion of them as deliberate deceivers.

In 2004 then Brady President Michael D. Barnes claimed they had about “a half million” members. Then a couple weeks ago I found out they only have about 50,000 members and that is only if you want to include those that haven’t donated any money in over two years. If you measure “membership” as most people do then the real numbers are about 28K or less.

When they said they would not share supporter names with unaffiliated groups they lied.

There is a reason I have frequently called their lawyer “Half-Truth Henigan“.

When I asked Paul Helmke why he was not concerned with the total violence rather than just “gun violence” it was because I wanted to point out to the rest of the audience that Helmke was, as usual, selectively reporting data that would propagate his half-truth.

Deception has been a part of their organization for decades. I believe deception has become institutionalized in their organization. It is a part of their culture. Perhaps they believe the end justifies the means. I don’t really know why. I just know that to this day they still deceive. And it isn’t all that important to know why. It’s just important that we destroy them politically and as an institution. They may have good intentions but Hell is paved with good intentions and their political goals enable evil.

When Brady people hear or read my name or links to my blog posts in relation to news that hurts them it I want them to know something. I want them to know a major part of the reason I am on their case is because I have never gotten over them sending out a deliberate half-truth in that letter nearly 20 years ago.

*Yes, it’s possible that they still have my name and address in their list of “members” even though I have never donated any money to them. I did send them my address requesting they keep me informed…

**Okay, so that doesn’t resonate with all that many people anymore. How about like remembering where you were when you found out the twin towers where hit by an airplane?–Joe]

Cops respond to Brady Campaign troubles

Posted on by

A forum “for Cops by Cops” responds to the news about Brady Campaign troubles pretty much like what I would expect. HA HA!

Sensible control measures

Posted on by

From the Washington Post:

Many legal analysts predict that Chicago’s handgun ban is done for. While proponents of gun control may feel discouraged, the actual impact could be minimal, depending on what regulations the court allows Chicago to put on the books instead. New York City, for example, makes it quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process that falls short of an outright ban.

Local officials from Dodge City to Chicago have understood that some regulation of firearms within city limits is in the public’s interest, and that regulation and law enforcement are important complements in the effort to reduce gun violence. Even before the repeal of D.C.’s handgun ban, the city’s police reestablished a gun-recovery unit and focused on seizing illegal firearms. The city’s homicide rate has been relatively flat the past several years. If the court decides that Chicago must follow D.C’s lead in getting rid of its handgun ban, we can only hope that it leaves the door open for sensible control measures.

It’s not explicitly stated but the implication seems pretty clear to me that they think NYC making it “quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process” are “sensible control measures”.

The courts should no more allow “sensible control measures” for gun owners than they did Jim Crow Laws.

This should be a clue

Posted on by

Someone is asking:

Where can I find “positive” ATF videos?

…

Raw or not, “positive” videos seem nearly impossible to find for the ATF (and even for FEMA,
for that matter).

You have to have positive acts by the ATF before you can have positive videos of it.

Whose business is it?

Posted on by

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California says, “It’s none of government’s flippin’ business what guns I own, or why I own them.”

Of course the Brady Campaign and their supporters disagree. From the same article we find the claim
“It will make your community safer, and make officers safer,” by Juliet Leftwich of Legal Community Against Violence, which co-sponsored the bill.

Is that all it takes? A claim of increased safety? We know there is no data supporting a claim that weapons restrictions of any type have ever made the average person safer. But suppose there was. Would that be sufficient grounds for tracking and licensing people that engage in activities that sometimes result in injury or even death?

If that were true then government paperwork could be justified for every instance of sexual intercourse. Do you want to live in a world like that?

Just think of the benefits! It would make it easier for health officials to track down all carriers of sexual transmitted diseases. Shouldn’t we make it easier for government officials?

If those that advocate government tracking of gun and ammunition were consistent they would advocate the same for sexual intercourse. But of course registration and tracking of guns can no more reduce violent crime than requiring paperwork for each act of sexual intercourse would help apprehend rapists. And more importantly because we have a specifically enumerated right to keep and bear arms it is even less of their business to track our exercise of that right than it is to track our sexual activities.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

People on both sides of the issue sometimes attribute evil intent to their opponents. While the evidence is overwhelming that evil intent exists in some cases (see also here) I am of the opinion the majority of the anti-gun people have good intentions. They typically are ignorant and/or have difficulty distinguishing between truth and falsity. This doesn’t mean that their actions don’t enable or cause evil results. Hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

It could be that my sample is biased but examples where anti-gun people acknowledge pro-gun people have good intentions appear to be non-existent. Typically they attribute NRA actions as benefiting the gun manufactures and it being “all about the money”. But many examples, such as the cartoon above, exist which claim the NRA markets guns to kids and works to arm criminals.

This systematic and persistent attribution of evil intent to all gun owners and organizations is no different than attributing evil intent to blacks who demand repeal of curfew laws and laws prohibiting socializing between the races or gays who wish to adopt children.

The VPC does not hide it’s belief that gun owners and gun organizations are evil. But the Brady Campaign does not do this. They are much more moderate in their rhetoric and probably as result of this are a much larger organization. They are aware that extremism in pursuit of their goals is a loosing strategy. While I find it telling that extremism in defense of liberty does not suffer from the same handicap that is a topic for another post (perhaps Lyle would like to take this up).

I can’t help but think that asking anti-gun people what they think the motivation is for pro-gun people would be revealing. I suspect asking them this question would cause them to confront beliefs which are clearly not supported by the evidence.

Quote of the day–Sheriff Richard I. Mack

Posted on by

Any right or freedom not worth fighting for is but a temporary privilege.

Sheriff Richard I. Mack
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 212.
[Not only must it be worth fighting for but people must actually go out and do the fighting and voting.–Joe]

Who is Brady’s donor?

Posted on by

After reading Rob Reed’s article I followed the link to Open Secrets and the Brady fund raising info. As Robb noted the other day (but I failed to follow up on) the Brady Campaign has had just one donor this year who gave them $2500.

If they turn off all the lights, turn the heat down really low during the winter, and only use enough air-conditioning to keep the computers from overheating that might be enough to pay the electric bill. I don’t what kind of guns you own, that’s funny.

You know what is even funnier? That one donor…I know who it is. Open Secrets lists them as Michael Wolkowitz.

That name… where have I seen that name before? Could it be some crime family boss wanting to keep their victims unarmed? Or maybe a foreign nation diplomat, the Taliban, or some other subversive? Naw! Too easy. It has to be someone else.

Oh yeah! Now I remember! It is the Brady Campaign Board Chair.

I don’t care who you are. That’s funny right there!

Suicide watch

Posted on by

This is a little different than most suicide watches. In this one they are in the process and we are just watching it happen.


After it completes we should all go to the wake. I’ll sign up to bring my famous cookies and maybe my chemistry set.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Had it been “U.S. Constitution” and “Bill of Rights” instead of “gun” and “Smith and thy Wesson” there would be some truth in the cartoon and it would apply to a large percentage of gun owners and NRA members. As it is it only reflects the bigoted, imaginary world of the artist.

Quote of the day–John R. Lott Jr.

Posted on by

When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, even German ones, they usually start off by asking why multiple-victim public shootings are such an American problem. And of course, they are astonished when I remind them of the attacks in their own countries and point out that this is not an American problem, it is a universal problem, but with a common factor: The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

John R. Lott Jr.
June 11, 2010
Gun Control and Mass Murder
[H/T to Dave Hardy.

I would have said “private citizens” instead of “civilians” but he still gets the point across.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

 

I’ve been collecting gun cartoons and it’s time to start sharing. Most come from the dark ages of the mid and late 1990s.

Perhaps this will help bring people up to speed on why I think anti-gun people are bigots. Would this cartoon get published in your paper if the target were black, Jewish, or homosexual?

Anti-gun people lying with statistics

Posted on by

One of the books on my shelf is How to Lie with Statistics. I found it very useful to help me identify the errors in the reports from anti-gun people. They apparently subscribe to the claim by the author, “A well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s “big Lie”; it misleads,
yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

For example NYC Mayor Bloomberg reported the other day:

The report shows that total crime decreased by 5.1 percent in New York City
during 2009, outpacing national trends. Murders fell by 9.9 percent, compared to
7.2 percent nationwide. According to NYPD Compstat data, crime is down an
additional 1.5 percent citywide for the first five months of the year when
compared to 2009 levels

What is not said is that (as pointed out by Linoge) NYC uses a biased sample for the statistics. They deliberately do not report all the crime.

Of course that is such a brute force approach it doesn’t take any great skill or reading of a book to accomplish.

The Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center are generally a little more subtle in their statistical lies.

As I wrote in my last paragraph in my post Alan Gura v. Paul Helmke Helmke and company talk about “gun violence” and concentrate on the “one component of violence”. The unmentioned assumption is that violent crime committed with guns is independent of all violent crime. If this were true then you would expect that one could, conceivably, eliminate all the guns in society and have a decrease in violent crime. This isn’t what happens in real life. It tends to be true that the rate of crimes committed with firearms goes down when there are exceedingly strict restriction in place. But other violent crime has a strong tendency to increase when those restrictions occur. The presumed reasons for this are: 1) If criminals cannot get access to a firearm they substitute a different weapons and; 2) Potential victims are disarmed which encourages predators because of the reduced risk of getting hurt and/or caught.

The VPC feeds the press information on “gun death rates” and they eat it up. But the VPC appears to include suicides and justifiable homicide by police and private citizens! According to their numbers it is just as bad for a wheelchair bound elderly woman to kill the man who broke into her home to rape her as it for the home invader to kill an entire family including the toddlers. And they ignore violent crime in general.

Their statistics tells us nothing about whether places with strict gun laws make the average person safer. They do tell us where we can live if you would rather die by being beaten to death than a gunshot wound and where violent predators can find disarmed prey. One should conclude that VPC is more appropriately named the Violent Predator Compendium.

Quote of the day–Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted on by

Sorry! Page Not Found

As you can see we have moved things around. We hope the new structure will make things easier to find on the site. All of the pages on the site are listed below.

Sorry, the page you requested is not in our database. You may have followed a bad external link, or mis-typed a URL.

For now, you may want to load our homepage (www.bradycenter.org) or type your request in the search box above.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 9, 2010
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/dc
[The link used to go to this content. Searching for Helen Thomas on their site still yields the link above but the page has been removed. I wonder why?

Since they seem to have lost the web page I’m pleased to offer it back to them and even host it on my site at no charge.

The Brady Campaign–The 21st Century social equivalent of the KKK.

Update: Their web page about honoring Helen Thomas works again. Sebastian speculates.

If I were in management of an organization that were embarrassed by someone we honored by giving them an award I think I would do just the opposite of what they did. I think I would leave the web page (the Internet is forever once it hits the tubes–you can’t take it back so why try?) but update it with a statement that you were unaware (assuming that is true) of the persons embarrassing beliefs and have revoked the award.

They appear to have tried to just hide the evidence which is the wrong thing to do. Will they do the right thing now? They haven’t in the past. Let’s hope they continue to fumble along and further confirm my claim they are ordinary bigots who are not ashamed of their beliefs and the people they associate with.–Joe]