.@DLoesch we have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
— Erika Soto Lamb (@erikasotolamb) April 27, 2014
That is some weapons grade hypocrisy...
.@DLoesch we have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
— Erika Soto Lamb (@erikasotolamb) April 27, 2014
CONCORD — A man was arrested and two people, including a Concord police officer, were allegedly assaulted during a rally Tuesday in a clash between a gun control group and gun rights supporters.
The event had people supporting the Mayors Against Illegal Guns movement, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reading the names of those "killed with guns" since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary outside their "No More Names" bus.[...]
The presence of the national gun control group in front of the state Capitol Tuesday night prompted numerous shouts from gun rights supporters. While there were about 40 No More Names supporters, there were at least 60 gun rights supporters at the rally.
"I think this is a joke," said Tony Mayfield of Hillsborough, who brought his AR-15 rifle and Sig Sauer T39 handgun to the rally. "We have, for all intents and purposes, a corporation from out of state doing this little publicity stunt here."
Rally organizers, whose bus had Texas license plates, refused to speak to a New Hampshire Union Leader reporter and referred him to the organization's national headquarters.
Some of the loudest shouts came when a reader spoke the name of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects who was killed by police during a gunfight.
"He's a terrorist," several protesters shouted. Read more here...
Mike Bloomberg is spending $12 million on attack ads designed to force U.S. senators to vote for national gun control laws that will supposedly save lives. However, the New York mayor’s commercials running in 13 states over the next two weeks could cause injury or death by showcasing irresponsible handling of a firearm.
Mr. Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, produced two ads featuring a man holding a shotgun, wearing plaid flannel with a camouflage cap and sitting on the tailgate of a pickup truck. While a child swings on a tire in the background, the man says, “I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”
The ad does not specify if the man is an actor, but he violates all three gun safety rules taught by the National Rifle Association (NRA). (Click here to see the ads.)
The first rule is to always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. In this case, the children are playing in the yard. Although the viewers can’t see what is to the side of the truck, the man should be pointing the muzzle in the air or at the ground.
The second NRA rule is always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Keep on reading…
The Obama group Organizing for Action is fighting back against accusations that it generated fake tweets supporting the president’s call for gun control legislation.
After OFA urged supporters to tweet members of Congress with the hashtag #WeDemandAVote, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and some conservative bloggers complained that some of the resulting tweets appeared to be fake and accused OFA of generating them.
But OFA says they were simply from people new to Twitter or not very active on the site.
“With tens of thousands of supporters engaging via social media during our day of action last week we are thrilled with the number of whom took to new mediums to get involved,” OFA spokeswoman Katie Hogan told POLITICO. “Just because a supporter does not spend all their time on Twitter does not mean they are not a real person with real concerns about the direction many members of Congress are trying to take this country.”
Stockman’s office said Monday that it had received 16 tweets with identical wording and concluded that 10 of them were “fake, computer-generated spambots” because they used the default egg avatar, had hardly tweeted or followed anyone and “engaged in no human interaction” on Twitter. His office also noted that some of the accounts were created within 48 hours of the tweets and “They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.”Here is an example:
Example of a #WeDemandAVote spam account."Born On" date indicates the date the account was created. twitter.com/DefendWallSt/s…
— ERMAHGERD SEQUERSTER (@DefendWallSt) February 24, 2013
The home of a gun owner, whose address was published by a New York newspaper, has been burglarized and police believe the burglars targeted the homeowner’s gun safe.
The residence in White Plains, was identified in a controversial list published by The Journal News — a Gannett Co. newspaper. The elderly homeowner, who legally owns weapons, was not at home at the time of the burglary.
“The police are doing a full investigation,” the unidentified man told NewsDay.
The newspaper has come under intense national exposure after they published a list of residents who have gun permits.
Keep on reading…
Many people have wandered into bear country reassured that their trusted gun would keep them safe if they ever come face-to-face with an aggressive grizzly.The study is published in the Journal of Wildlife Management. The full study is hidden behind a membership wall. I can only comment on the details provided in a lengthy press release posted on BYU's website. Most of the articles add this spin line which is directly from the BYU press release.
But experts have shattered that myth after carrying out a study of hundreds of animal attacks.
A Brigham Young University study found using a gun is no more effective at keeping people safe than not using a firearm.
This finding is especially relevant given the 2010 law allowing guns in national parks.Here are some other relevant excerpts from the press release.
Smith and his colleagues analyzed 269 incidents of bear-human conflicts in Alaska for the study, appearing in the forthcoming issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management. Those incidents involved 444 people and 357 bears, 300 of which were brown bears.There is a serious problem with this comparison. The people involved in these encounters are not bear hunting. It seems reasonable to believe they only used a gun if they felt severely threatened. It is apples and oranges to compare 229 encounters where people felt threatened enough to use a gun on a bear to 40 instances where people had guns, but the threat level never rose that high. The bears in the second group were likely less aggressive. The press release then makes the claim non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray is actually more effective against aggressive bears than a gun.
The researchers found no statistical difference in the outcome (no injury, injury or fatality) when they compared those who used their gun in an aggressive encounter (229 instances) to those who had firearms but did not use them (40 instances).
“People should consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray,” said Smith, a gun owner himself. “It’s much easier to deploy, it’s less cumbersome and its success rate in these situations is higher than guns.”
In a 2008 study, Smith found that bear spray effectively halted aggressive bear encounters in 92 percent of the cases.Is this claim valid? Here are some excerpts from the BYU 2008 press release for this study which is also by Mr. Smith.
Hikers and campers venturing into bear country this spring may be safer armed with 8-ounce cans of bear pepper spray than with guns, according to a new study led by a Brigham Young University bear biologist.[...]
Concerned about hikers' and campers' persistent doubts that a small can of liquid pepper spray could stop half a ton of claws, muscle and teeth, Smith and colleagues analyzed 20 years of bear spray incidents in Alaska, home to 150,000 bears. He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food. Of all 175 people involved in the incidents studied, only three were injured by bears, and none required hospitalization. Smith and his research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management.Again, there seems to be an apple and oranges situation. The 2008 study includes bears that were merely rummaging for food. It is reasonable to believe the most people wouldn't use a gun because a bear was rummaging for food. Gun use would be reserved for the most aggressive encounters. Additionally, this was a fairly small sample of only 71 incidents where bear spray was used. BYU biologist and bear expert Tom S. Smith claims to not be anti-gun. That may be true. However, he is very pro bear. In this audio recording of an interview, Mr. Smith concedes there are some bears pepper spray will not stop. In those cases, only a gun can settle the issue.
Confronted with a logical question, here's what the mayor did: He picked up a rifle from the prop table of guns, raised it and began to babble.
"It's been very effective," said Daley of the handgun ban. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know."
The mayor of Chicago then went on to say if the justices were attacked by thugs with guns, they'd see things his way...