We will ban all militaries! Ban war!

Of course, without a military, such a ban cannot be enforced.
I believe that idea was tried already. The treaty of Versailles made it illegal for Germany to have a military beyond a small self defense force.

When Germany violated the treaty, the French and British did nothing. This treaty had clearly stated what Germany’s navy should be – no submarines and only six warships over 10,000 tons. In June 1935 the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. This allowed Germany to have one third of the tonnage of the British navy’s surface fleet (probably the largest in the world at this time) and an equal tonnage of submarines.

Why did Britain agree that Nazi Germany could break the terms of Versailles?

This event saw the start of what was to be called appeasement. It was believed that Nazi Germany would develop her navy regardless and that an official agreement between Nazi Germany and Britain would do much to foster relations between both countries. No one was willing to use force to back up the agreement.

That is a universal truth: those who are unwilling to use force in self defense will always be the victims of those who are willing to use force to obtain what they want.

To have peace, be ready for war.



From 2013, the show 20/20 busts gun myths.


Two stories

Two attacks of Florida College Students. In the first, a man enters the campus of Florida State University and begins shooting. Three people are hit, and one of them is now paralyzed for life. The gunman was killed 5 minutes later by police officers who responded to the scene. It turns out that he was mentally disturbed. It also turns out that he was a liberal attorney who graduated from FSU in 1979.

One of the victims in the shooting was Nathan Scott. Nathan Scott is a concealed carry permit holder, as well as a concealed carry activist who is highly trained and has the necessary skills to carry his firearm. He was disarmed, because under state law, the FSU campus is a “gun free zone” where law abiding gun owners are stripped of their right to carry. Of course, while law-abiding citizens leave their guns at home… criminals see no reason to obey the “gun free zone” signs and carry their firearms wherever they want. Which is EXACTLY what happened at FSU.

Which brings us to the second incident. In this incident, a pair of University of Central Florida students were victims of a home  invasion in their off-campus apartment. The home invaders held a gun to the male occupant’s head and told the man that they were going to kill his girlfriend, who had fled to a back bedroom. What they didn’t know was that the woman had retrieved a handgun, and when they went after her, she pointed it at them, and they fled.

The state legislature of Florida has proposed several pro-defense bills, and the local liberals press have come out in opposition. They come out with their typical diatribe:

Maybe that’s because they understand the young people who populate their
campuses, and the sometimes rash and immature ways in which they can
act, particularly after consuming alcohol. Adding firearms into the mix
is a legitimate cause for concern.

Totally ignoring the fact that many college students, teachers, and professors are not the stereotypical ‘Animal House’ idiots that they are attempting to paint them as. Especially considering that those same students manage to carry concealed weapons everywhere else that they go in the state without causing any of problems. It is hard to see how that changes as soon as they cross an imaginary line to enter campus.


Hands up, don’t shoot criminals

In a recent case, police were called to a downtown Orlando nightclub because of a report of a man brandishing a firearm. The surveillance video is found here.

A man was thrown out of a nightclub for fighting (:19). He pulled a pistol out of his waistband (:31), drops it on the ground, and waits outside of the locked nightclub with the pistol in a low ready position. He sticks the handgun back into his waistband at :58 and continues to pace outside of the club.

 The police officers (2 of them) confront the armed man at 1:40 with guns drawn. He does not obey commands to raise his hands. More officers arrive They shoot him with a Taser at about 1:55, at which time both of his hands go to his waistband. Most of the cops retreat, and the one center screen fires 9 shots. Seven of them hit the suspect, and one travels through the door of the nightclub and strikes a female bystander in the head, killing her. The suspect, who lived, is charged with murder for her death.

The local press does a story, and this is where the main point of this post comes in:

There is one commenter who has made the following statements
Another case of excessive force by Police. My prayers for Mr. Roach’s full recovery.

First of all – Mr. Roach’s gun was not loaded. Secondly – he had
been tasered by the Police and his arm movements were caused by the
electric shock – NOT because he was reaching for his unloaded gun.
This was an attempted assassination. And 9 shots? really?

Mr. Roach was isolated (had no hostages or cover) and was standing 5 feet away from the Police Officers.
these conditions – 9 shots from a 40 S&W is a ridiculous case of
excessive force. A Police Officer is responsible for every bullet he
fires. Spraying 9 rounds in a crowded downtown area is reckless.
Mr. Roach had already been tasered by another Officer and was
convulsing from the electric shock – he was not reaching for his
unloaded gun.

My questions, which he won’t answer:

1 When is it appropriate for a person to use lethal force?
2 How can you tell if a gun is unloaded simply by looking at it?
3 How many times can you shoot someone?



We hear time and again from anti gun people that “Australia saw a 50% reduction in their murder rate after passing a gun ban.” Is this really true? Let’s take a look at the facts.

In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where a man went on a shooting spree which killed 35 people and injured 23 more, Australia passed a law  This law, the Medicare Levy Amendment Act  of1996, mandated that many had to turn in their guns in exchange for $500. It was passed without true representation. When pro gun people attempted to join political parties and to vote, they were prohibited from doing so by the anti gun politicians and court (pdf warning). This confiscation was completed on September 30, 1997.
EDITED TO ADD: There are numerous newspaper articles that detail how the Liberal party of the country did all in their power to keep people from being able to vote on the issue. Here is an example, and a quote:

 The Queensland Liberal Party plans to thoroughly check new membership
applications in order to prevent members of the gun lobby joining and
challenging the preselection of politicians who support gun controls.
The New South Wales Liberal Party will have prospective new members
forms checked at their head office.

 There was also talk about “extremists” infiltrating the parties. These “extremists” were eventually not permitted to vote:

Atkins examines whether the increased activity of the far right over the
past two months reflects something serious in Australian politics, and
whether it poses a threat to the National Party. He canvasses the
opinions of Andrew Moore, Gerard Henderson and Liz Van Acker, who feel
that the potential infiltration of the National Party branches is a more
serious issue than the emergence of a new party. The mainstream right
needs to confront right wing extremists in the same way that Labor has
taken on left wing extremists. Politicians must also put themselves back
in touch with what is happening outside the major urban areas.

Can’t have those extremists voting. Only people who have the approved opinion may vote. 

The laws in effect in Australia are much more strict than in the US, and as a result, only 5% of the public owns firearms. The anti gun people here in the US insist that this resulted in a 50% reduction in the Australian murder rate. The Australian government has tracked homicide statistics under the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) since 1989.

According to the NHMP, the highest murder rate in the country’s history was in 1999, with 344 murders being reported. That was TWO YEARS AFTER the strict gun laws went into effect. In fact, the number of murders in Australia have remained steady at between 250 and 350 murders for the entire time that the government has been tracking the statistics.

There has been a 5% reduction in the number of murders in the 20 years since the new gun laws, but there was a similar reduction in the years BEFORE the law went into effect as well, indicating that there was already an overall reduction underway without new gun laws.

So where do the anti gun folks get their “fact” about a 50% reduction from? From 1915 to 1996, about 30% of homicides in Australia were committed by people wielding firearms. From 1996 onwards, that has fallen to about 15%. So what we have seen is a 50% reduction in FIREARM murders, but we have seen a corresponding increase in non-firearm murders, so that the overall rate of homicide has remained unchanged. 

It doesn’t matter whether a person is killed with a gun, a stick, or a balled up fist, they are still dead. Unless, of course, you have a political agenda.


Universal Background Checks

If only we required background checks for all firearms transfers, criminals wouldn’t be able to get guns

What about the burglary loophole?


Their votes count as much as yours…

Seven of fourteen people surveyed claimed that they saw Martin Luther King, Jr give a speech on Monday.


Tipping is evil

I have complained about tipping for years. Here is a video that goes along with that theory:


Smartphone and smart guns

New Smartphone apps claim to be able to tell if the user of the phone is depressed. Does this mean that we are about to be inundated with anti gun forces calling for laws that would allow your gun to refuse to fire if it detects that you are experiencing psychological distress?


Hoods and hoodies.

With all of the crime this year in and around St Louis, one Family Dollar Store posted a sign, requesting that customers remove hoods before entering. Some customers felt that the ban on covering your identifiable features with a hooded sweatshirt was racist. I was not aware that hooded sweatshirts were only for blacks.

The national headquarters for the chain have since forced the local store to take down the sign.