Gun Owners of the San Fernando Valley Posts

Perennial screwball, Virginia Governor, and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Terry McAuliffe recently stated that 93 million Americans die each day from gun violence. Sounds a little off, doncha think?

McAuliffe made this claim the day a Democrat extremist and Bernie-bro attempted to assassinate members of the House GOP. It’s been more than three days since his remarks and we’re all still alive. It’s thus safe to conclude that 93 million of us don’t die every day from “gun violence”. (Or any other flavor of violence, for that matter.)

Well… OK… It was a slip of the tongue. Even though he said 93 million, twice, he really meant 93; as in three more than ninety and 7 less than one hundred; the precise value between 92 and 94. But it does raise a pair of questions: Where did he get the number 93 and why did 93 million pop into his head, twice?

The first answer is easy: He’s cooking the books. 93 per day is the total number of firearms related deaths in the US each day. This includes suicides. He’s deliberately conflating the two in order to make homicides look more common than they really are. Suicides are not preventable via gun control laws any more than homicides are. In both cases, those intent upon killing, either themselves or others, will find tools appropriate to the task. It’s also important to remember that this is a nation of 321,000,000 people. Even if there were 93 homicides each day, that’s only .000029% of the US population.

As to the spurious multiplier, My guess is that McAuliffe said it because he truly believes that there are that many deaths per day. He’s not alone. There are lots of anti-gun activists out there who are thoroughly convinced that we’re all gonna DIE, if “something” isn’t done. You can hit them with the real numbers all day long, but you won’t get past their irrational fears.

News

You sometimes have to wonder why the MSM is so consistently wrong on subjects such as guns. Are they simply stupid? Are they being willfully ignorant?

Or are they just lying?

It really could be that last one. But what I don’t get is how they think that they can away with it. It’s not like it was back in the good ol’ days. They can’t tell a lie and then expect it to be months or years before they’re found out. (Just ask Dan Rather! His career was over before “Fake but accurate” had finished airing in the Hawaiian market. And that was over a decade ago.) The latest are claims that Democrat Party extremist and Bernie-Bro James Hodgkinson was armed with an “M4 assault rifle“.

It was an SKS.

Now, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? The M4 is a military weapon system capable of fully automatic fire. That’s like a machine gun for those of you in Rio Linda. (Or journalism school.) The SKS is a semi-automatic rifle. It fires once and only once for each pull of the trigger. The M4 fires the 5.56X45mm round while the SKS fires the 7.62X39mm round. They’re very different rounds. The 5.56mm round is a much higher velocity round, though both have the similar effective ranges.

And now the really important differences: The SKS can be purchased by civilians in the US while the M4 cannot. The M4 accepts a detachable magazine, while the SKS (almost always) does not. (There are some after-market modifications and some versions that do accept a detachable magazine, but these aren’t common.) The standard magazine for the M4 holds 30 rounds. The standard fixed magazine for the SKS accepts only 10. This means that the SKS isn’t classified as an “assault weapon” anywhere in the US.

But all of this information is available on the Interwebs. Why didn’t the dim bulbs at CBS, ABC, or the New York Post bother to look? Don’t they have computers?! Do they know about Google?! Or were they just trying to squeeze in a little more propaganda?

News

duckspeak [duhk⋅speek]

noun
To quack like a duck; to speak without thinking.

As predictable as the rising sun, the attempted assassination of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise has anti-gun wingnuts calling for more and more gun control. In particular are calls for “universal” background checks. Never mind that the shooter in this case passed several of these beloved background checks. Perhaps those calling for more gun laws should do a little research before they start quacking.

There were ample opportunities for the legal system to catch the assassin before he struck. He had multiple encounters with law enforcement that could have ended in arrests and convictions. But they didn’t. in each case, he was given a pass. Convictions that could have marked him as a prohibited person, and thus would have allowed the police to disarm him, didn’t happen. And yet, we’re supposed to believe that, but for a few more gun laws, this crime could have been prevented.

What good are more gun laws when the legal system seems determined to ignore the ones already available to it?

News

Michigan Congressman Mike Bishop has reportedly stated that the assassination attempt on House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and other GOP members of Congress was foiled, in large part, by an armed civilian who engaged the shooter

“The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us,” said Bishop. “He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.”

No details are available at this moment as to the identity of the shooter or the brave civilian who risked his life to protect others.

News Self-defense

No, not the watery kind like we’re having here in California; We’re talking about the .22LR ammo drought. (The watery kind may be over too, but we’ll have to see what the next winter is like!)

Wally-World has reportedly told its sales associates in their sporting goods departments that they can sell as much .22 ammo to a single customer as they’d like. Walmart is the largest retailer of guns and ammo in the US. If they think that there’s plenty of ammo to go around, then there probably is. This marks the end of a lingering influence of the Obama regime’s years in power. Greater manufacturing capacity combined with less of a tendency to hoard is returning the ammo supply in the US to normal.

#MAGA!

News Shooting sports

Once a people have lost a right, those in power over them will not, as a rule, willingly return that right. Asking politely, hat in hand, just won’t do the trick. American history teaches us that a more direct approach is what’s needed; something a little more emphatic than just asking nicely.

Something lethal.

In the wake of the latest terror attack in the UK, British gun owners (and those who would like to be gun owners in the UK) are asking for their rights back. There’s a much chance of that happening as there is of Her Majesty sprouting wings and flying off to Mumbai for some curried lamb.

I’ll be blunt about this: You folks in the UK aren’t getting your gun rights back anytime soon. You pissed them away over the course of the last century. Every time you were asked to compromise with the gun banners, you cooperated. Sure, you grumbled a little, but then you caved and turned your guns in like good little minions. Here in the US, anti-gun laws do sometimes get passed over the objections of the People; but we don’t cooperate. We adapt an old Soviet joke: They pretend to pass laws and we pretend to obey them. We don’t limit ourselves to mere civil disobedience either. The NRA and others have waged a successful legislative and legal campaign to overturn unconstitutional laws and to strengthen the right to keep and bear arms. But even with these successes, there still lurks, just under the surface, the threat that we’ll start killing people again to protect our liberties.

Once lost, rights are reclaimed only through bloodshed. If you’re not willing to kill for your rights, then you’re not getting them back. It’s that simple. Over 200 years ago, the American People made it clear that they were willing to kill people to regain their rights. The British People never held their right to armed self protection so dearly. They traded that right away for imagined protection from the hand of government. Now that deal isn’t working out so well.

Yup another attack featuring motor vehicles and knifes. More innocent people injured or killed and still our government won’t change our self defence laws and classifies bloody pepper spray as a section 5 firearm!!! Remember they have the 24 hour armed bodyguards protecting them while they continue to sell the lie that firearms are not suitable for personal protection and continue to harass legal gun owners.

They can’t guarantee your safety but deny you any means to prepare for your own safety.

A side note: Those here who are the loudest proponents of civilian disarmament are also those with access to armed, private security. Go figure!

Violence, like it or not, is what regains liberties that have been lost. The threat of renewed violence is what keeps those liberties once they’ve been regained. The American People learned this hard lesson from history; our British cousins did not.

…until now.

News Self-defense

Federal Legislation News Pro-gun Safety

Legal News

As if on cue, here’s another letter writer going on about his imagined right to feel safe from non-existent threats. This one is willing to admit to your right to keep and bear arms, but only a version of that right that ends at your front door. The “simple logic” he offers in support of his argument is that “The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.” This argument, however, is not borne out by the facts.

As we recently discussed, areas where gun ownership is at its highest are the areas of the country that are the safest. Homicides and other violent crimes occur in those areas where legal gun ownership is at its lowest. The letter writer’s “simple logic” falls apart in the face of real data. The very restrictions he calls for have, at best, no positive effect on violent crime rates. At worst, they make violent crime worse by making it safer to be a criminal. (Think of gun laws as workplace safety regulations for criminals!) The corollary to his argument would be that the fewer loaded guns there are in public, the fewer bullets will fly. But this is also false. Other factors, such as poverty and the presence of the illicit narcotics trade, decide how many bullets will fly; not the availability of loaded firearms.

(H/T: TheTruthAboutGuns.com)

News Self-defense

The Declaration of Independence states that among our “unalienable rights” are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given to us by God; meaning that they were not granted to us by a king or any other human government. That they are “unalienable” means that these are rights that we are, in fact, powerless to reject. We do so only at our own peril. Rejecting these rights would be like saying that you do not want your kidneys anymore. Perhaps you don’t like their color. Sure, you could have them removed, but you wouldn’t last long!

From the right to life comes the right to protect that life. From that right flows the right to the means to do so. This is where the right protected by (not granted by or created by) the 2nd Amendment comes from. What does not spring from the right to life is a right to be protected from imagined threats.

But this is precisely the right craved by so many on the anti-gun Left. An example comes from a letter writer to the Des Moines Register who asks…

When will legislators on the state and national level stop catering to gun lobbies and do something to make all Americans safer? Everyone should realize we have a Second Amendment that allows people to own guns and that right is not going to be taken away. But where does that amendment stop and my right to live safely begin?

The writer submitted this letter following several shootings in her Beaverdale neighborhood; including at least one homicide. These were not, however, random shootings. They were drug related. In other words, these were criminals shooting other criminals. These weren’t 3-gun shooters or duck hunters running amok. So unless the letter writer is in the illegal narcotics trade, these shooting pose little to no tangible threat to her. The threat exists only in her imagination.

The letter states that “we have a Second Amendment that allows people to own guns and that right is not going to be taken away”, but how else are we to interpret her demand to “live safely”? She focuses on acts committed by criminals, but later laments new Iowa laws that protect the rights of law abiding gun owners in that State. This is a demand that those who threaten no one be disarmed so that others can enjoy the right to feel safe; not actually be safe. That right doesn’t exist.

(H/T: CalGunLaws.com)

News Self-defense