Category Archives: Gun Control FAIL

If gun control works so well why is there ANY murder in NYC

If gun control works so well why is there ANY murder in NYC

New York City recently celebrated a week free of murders, abruptly ended by murder.

But if Bloomberg’s gun free city is so great why are there any murders?

Funny thing about that.  Somehow, even with a de facto ban on guns criminals STILL use them to kill.  Another funny thing, despite what Bloomberg prattles on about, you can kill people with things OTHER than guns.

There have been 256 murders thus far this year in the city.  Of those only 148 were committed by firearms.  That means 108 people were murdered by something OTHER than a firearm.

With all the gun hating prognosticators using fear tactics to demonize firearms you would think that without  firearm’s forcing people to do evil their would be NO crime without a firearm.

While the NYPD and Bloomberg were patting themselves on the back because they had one week without a murder I took a look at the week before.

From September 30th to October 6th:

  • 11 murders
  • 28 rapes
  • 427 robberies
  • 341 burglaries
  • 938 Grand Larceny
  • 160 GL Auto
  • 935 Assaults
  • 29 Shooting victims
  • 22 Shooting incidents

So even without murders there are still law abiding citizens of New York City that are being rapped and beaten and robbed that have no defense against those who are more powerful or outnumber them.  While murders took a fluke holiday last week crime and the production of victims thanks to the disarmament of the law abiding continued.

What’s not a fluke is that the criminals who committed these crimes rest safely knowing that they can continue on doing so without fear that their victims will be able to stop them.

Let Mayor Bloomberg hang his hat on that.


Gun Control Success: CA teacher murdered in front of students by knife.

Gun Control Success: CA teacher murdered in front of students by knife.

53 year old teacher Kellye Taylor was murdered in front of her students during recess by the father of her grandchildren, Steven Brown.

Taylor was overpowered by the younger man and fatally stabbed in the neck.

Is this what successful gun control looks like?

What I see is that an older woman who could not overpower her attacker was murdered in front of her students and could not have carried a firearm to defend herself.  The equalizer that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee would have given her a fighting chance yet was denied her.

This is the real effect that gun control has.  It disarms the law abiding and leaves vulnerable the small, the old, and the weak.  Now those who are bigger, younger and stronger can rape rob and murder without real fear of repercussions during their crime.  Sure the cops can come later and make the chalk lines and arrest the guilty for what little good it does the victim.

I would wager that the vast majority of rape victims would prefer that the only bodily fluid on them from their would be rapist was the blood splatter from where they shot the rapist dead.

How does gun control view that outcome?



Are the gun control zealots now going to focus on cutlery control? Police recovered the “sharp instrument” used in the attack.  A sharp instrument could be almost anything from a box cutter to an ice pick.  These tools have valid and legal uses but can be used improperly as well.  Of course, that is true with firearms as well yet the gun controllers don’t really care about that.

Now, gun controllers might say, “if gun control wasn’t as tough in California, Brown might have shot Taylor”.

So?  It’s not like Taylor would have ended up any more dead.  Yet, perhaps she might have survived if she had been allowed to have the tools which would have facilitated her defense.

Alas, she was denied that right and as such the war on women in California continues.

Gun Free Zones – The Den of Iniquity

Gun Free Zones – The Den of Iniquity

After the Washington Navy Yard shootings two weeks ago, the gun control and background check issues have come up for discussion again, as has the idea of creating more gun-free zones. I don’t know how to break it to the anti-gun people, but it’ll never work to lower violence.

Washington, D.C., Chicago and New York City have the most stringent gun-control laws in the nation, and yet they still have a huge number of gun-related incidents every year, by people who usually have possession of them illegally. But let’s look beyond gun-related crimes.

How about violent crimes? A number of individuals in the anti-gun crowd tout the idea of being passive. In a study of rape cases, there was a 32% instance of successful rapes on women who were unarmed, and a 3% instance in women who were armed and defended themselves. Are those numbers counted in cases of gun violence? Not unless the woman shoots her attacker, in which case it increases the numbers of gun violence incidents, not rapes or murders prevented.

I saw a definition of gun control recently that really grabbed my attention on how the repercussions of gun control are glossed over by the media: “The theory that a woman found dead and raped in an alleyway, strangled by her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to one explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal gunshot wound.”

It should be about Equal Rights.

– Read the rest of the article at:

NY’s SAFE Act: Making It Safe For Bikers To Beat A Father Protecting His Family Half To Death

NY’s SAFE Act: Making It Safe For Bikers To Beat A Father Protecting His Family Half To Death

Gov. Cuomo’s keystone gun control legislation, the SAFE Act,, has lived up to its name by protecting a group of renegade bikers while they terrorized a family and beat the father half to death.

On the West Side Highway of New York City, in the middle of the afternoon in broad daylight a biker gang known as the Hollywood Stuntz pulled in front of SUV of Alexian Lien and slowed to a stop.  At which point the biker gang began to smash the vehicle with their helmets and slashed the tires with knives while LIen’s wife and young child were trapped inside.  Lien, fearing for the safety of his family accelerated through the biker blockade, hitting several bikers, in his attempt to escape.

The Stuntz gave pursuit for 50 blocks before Lien’s slashed tires finally gave out and he had to get off the highway, at which point the biker gang pulled Lien from his car and beat him to the point that he needed to be hospitalized.

I guess we can thank both Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Cuomo’s SAFE Act that no bikers were harmed in this situation.

Because that is what the SAFE Act and Bloomberg’s personal war on self defense has allowed.  A group of criminals can wantonly and without fear of repercussion use their superior numbers to terrorize and beat people to within an inch of their lives (or worse).

Not only is having a gun for self protection by a law abiding citizen all but illegal in New York City, the SAFE Act’s idiotic ammo limitations only affected a law abiding citizens in the first place.

Who needs a handgun with 15 rounds of ammo?  MAYBE THE INNOCENT GUY BEING CHASED BY 20 PLUS BIKERS OUT FOR BLOOD!

I am positive that if Mr. Lien was legally allowed to carry a handgun with a 15 round magazine or stored a sporting rifle in his SUV that this outcome would have ended much better for him.  A few shots is usually all it takes for a mob to lose its courage and reveal its cowardice.

These measures of the SAFE Act and Bloomberg’s de facto ban on firearms for the law abiding in the city are directly responsible for Mr. Lien’s inability to fight off a biker gang who were endangering his wife and child and ultimately put him in the hospital.

And as for waiting on Bloomberg’s police force to come and save you?  Don’t hold your breath.  I’m not talking about the adage “When seconds count police are minutes away”.  I’m talking about the fact that there was an officer THERE while the beat down was going on and he just stood there and watched.  New York’s Finest indeed.

So even when the police are there…that doesn’t mean that they’ll be “there”.  And Alexian Lien is left to fend for himself in the face of this:



And the Stuntz were nice enough to capture the chase and beginning of the beat down on video.


This is what the SAFE Act and gun control in general gets you.  I hope Cuomo is happy.


If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders.   The intent being found in the other writings of the time.

George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”

Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”

So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?

If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances.  You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”.  You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.

Remember, this is gun control “logic”.

So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment.  Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land.  Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff.  And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.

By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is.  Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.

But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment.  Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT.  They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.

They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed

Anatomy of a Mass Shooting

Anatomy of a Mass Shooting

I ended up watching a couple of old episodes of Grey’s Anatomy last night.  For those of you who may not know it, Grey’s Anatomy is a hospital drama set in Seattle.

What caught my attention was that these episodes dealt with a mass shooting at the hospital committed by a deranged man whose wife had die while under the care of the doctors there.

The shooter basically walked around calmly as ever, looking for the Chief of Surgery who he blamed directly for his wife’s death and started shooting people who weren’t helpful or who had tried to stop him or were just other surgeons.  What ended up happening was that after the first few victims were finally discovered the hospital was put on lock-down and the police were called.

The shooter? Well, he kept on calmly walking around shooting people at will.

You see, this fictional hospital was a gun free zone and even the security guards were unarmed.

When the shooter was down to his last bullet he made some soliloquy about how easy it was for him to buy his gun at a superstore five days previously and he had all this ammo because they had a sale.  I had been waiting for the leftist gun grabbing slant and there it was.

Yet, while the writer’s made a fainthearted attack of the 2nd Amendment by schlepping together a monologue at the end of the show they couldn’t overcome that the two episode arc was a repudiation of so-called “gun free” zones.  While we can imagine what happens when a mass shooting takes place in a gun free zone, these episodes actually give us a pretty accurate fictionalized version of what takes place.  In the same way that Saving Private Ryan gave us a pretty good fictionalized version of what storming a beach on D-Day looks like.

What did the Grey’s Anatomy episodes outline that is the core anatomy of a mass shooting?

  • An active shooter is killing people and the police are minutes or more away before they are called and arrive
  • Even after police arrive they just don’t storm the building, they assess, so the killer is allowed to continue his rampage
  • If you run, the shooter will shoot you if he wants
  • If you beg for your life, the shooter will shoot you if he wants
  • If you hide, the shooter will find you then shoot you if he wants
  • If you fight back unarmed (unless you catch him by surprise) the shooter will shoot you
  • When someone armed shows up to oppose him, the shooter will most likely kill himself

This is what happens when a shooter is free to roam a place like a hospital or school with many rooms and many people and none of them able to shoot back.  Your life is forfeit if the shooter deems it so.  When you are unarmed you are at the mercy of any tyrant and your choices are run, hide, beg or fight.  Without a weapon of equal measure the likely outcome for all those choices is death.

As for the shooter, in a place such as a hospital or university there are plenty of places for him to hide and the size of the building allows for the possibility that he could start his rampage and have it go unnoticed for a while.

So even though the writer’s of Grey’s Anatomy may have tried to make this about the evil of guns, what they really produced was a work that showed the evils of so called “Gun Free Zones” and it was a pretty powerful work at that.

Who Needs a Gun? Paramedics. Ambulance CARJACKED in Philly w/ Patient in Back

Who Needs a Gun? Paramedics.  Ambulance CARJACKED in Philly w/ Patient in Back

Last week in Philadelphia an ambulance was carjacked on its way to a hospital.  The carjacker removed the two EMS personnel from the ambulance at gun point and drove off with a patient in the back.

The jacker, 25-year-old Brian Timothy Kada Jr, drove erratically, weaving in and out of freeway traffic and eventually having to abandon the ambulance after disabling it.  He fled on foot and was eventually arrested by police.

The patient in the back of the ambulance was shaken up but all together unharmed from the carjacking.

While fortunate no one was injured, this once again shows in whose hands gun control leaves power, because paramedics are disarmed while carjacking thugs could care less about gun control laws.

The rules of being licensed as a paramedic in Pennsylvania specifically state that as a paramedic you are prohibited from carrying a weapon to defend yourself.

The regulations covering this prohibition can be found in following PA Code:

1005.10 Licensure and general operating standards

(h) Weapons and explosives. Weapons and explosives may not be worn by ambulance personnel or carried aboard an ambulance.

Not only to stop random carjackings but there are a lot of reasons that paramedics would specifically be targeted by criminals and those who wish to do them harm.

While some are mundane like junkies looking to score some drugs or black marketeers looking for some high priced medical supplies, others are much more insidious and thereby more dangerous.

What if the ambulance is transporting a witness or a victim of domestic violence or a target of a violent attack and the person who committing the crime in question is not in police custody?

That leaves the ambulance, the paramedics and the patient in back with huge targets on them.  Sometimes there may be a cop with them, most times not.  And when it’s not, the paramedics are left disarmed at the will of criminals who actually have a vested interest in seeing them dead.

But no, if you are a paramedic you are not allowed to defend yourself, so you best hope that the carjacker, junkie, wife-beater, gang banger or murderer doesn’t feel like killing you because their discretion will be your only defense.

Well, I guess you could always try running away.

As for your patient though, I guess  the gun controllers just don’t care about them.