Medical Group: Mag Capacity A Public Heath Issue

From  | by AWR Hawkins | 24 Feb 2015:   On Monday, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) announced it was teaming up with the American Bar Association and seven other health organizations to form a “coalition” treating guns as a public health threat, focusing on ammunition magazine capacity.

According to AAFP’s announcement, the coalition presupposes “firearm violence is a public health issue…[that] needs to be addressed from a public health perspective.” The coalition believes the remedy to this health issue lies in gun control regulations that “are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution.”

Read more at Medical Group: Mag Capacity A Public Heath Issue

Copenhagen sees two shootings within hours

copenhagenOur thoughts are with the people of Denmark. On February 14, 2015, the city of Copenhagen was rocked by not one but, two shootings within hours of each other. It’s suspected that the same person or people are responsible for both attacks and it once again, very much looks to involve one or more Islamic extremists.

“…a gunman killed one person and injured three at a free speech debate attended by a Swedish cartoonist.

Hours later, a gunman opened fire on Krystalgade street, about 5km (three miles) from the scene of the first attack.”

via BBC News – Copenhagen hit by second deadly shooting.

At last report, local police are still searching for at least one shooter who escaped by carjacking a passerby. That vehicle was found abandoned a short while later. He was last seen wearing a purple balaclava and thick “puffer” jacket.

Like many European countries, Denmark is home to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. There is no right to own a firearm in Denmark. Licensing and specific training is required to own a gun. And in spite of all of that, much as the case in France, a criminal intent on doing people harm managed to do just that. The laws protected no one and violence has invaded Utopia again.


There’s No Such Thing As A Law-Abiding Gun Owner…

Ms. Gunn-Barrett candidly laid bare a basic premise of the gun ban mindset that usually goes unspoken: there’s no such thing as a law-abiding gun owner.
“You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment,” said Ms. Gunn-Barrett during the debate, “and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.”

via There’s No Such Thing As A Law-Abiding Gun Owner?.


Those are the words of Leah Gunn-Barrett, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. As long as this is the other side of the conversation, there is NO common ground to be had. This is akin to ask a jihadist for a peaceful solution when he has clearly stated the only “good” outcome is death to all “infidels.” To her and others of her mindset, we are all just waiting to go off. We are all paranoid, borderline psychotic individuals who will lay waste to the world around is at any moment.

Gunn-Barrett recently debated Scott Bach at New York University in a class on culture wars according to his post at Gunn-Barrett contends, as many other gun-control proponents do, that guns constitute a public health crisis and that the United States Supreme Court was in error when they said the Second Amendment denotes an individual, rather than collective, right to keep and bear arms. She also says the NRA represents manufacturers for their financial benefit rather than championing the rights of its individual members. None of these claims or opinions should surprise us. We’ve heard them all before.

You can read more in Bach’s post over at There’s nothing ground breaking in Bach’s point made in the debate or in his article. Most of us would agree that one’s personal safety is your own responsibility and points out that the government has time and time again argued that they are not responsible for your personal safety. And yet, gun-control supporters continue the constant pursuit of ways to limit the rights and means by which one defends himself.


Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers |

“And that’s why it’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, know our families — tell somebody,” he said. “If you know somebody that is acting with a lot of hatred towards any particular group — especially if it’s somebody you know is a gun enthusiast or is armed with these type of firearms and they’re showing any kind of propensity for hatred — it doesn’t mean we’re going to take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people.”

via Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers |

I wanted to be sure I got the whole quote so no one would say I was taking this man’s words out of context. On one hand, if you know someone is actively planning an unlawful action, by all means, say something. It could be argued, that’s what the chief meant. I don’t think any of us would disagree with the idea of speaking up when you know someone is planning a mass shooting or other attack on innocent people.

But it’s the second part of Chief Art Acevedo’s statement is deeply troubling. We all want to prevent lawless violence. But Acevedo wants to “vet” anyone showing “any kind of propensity for hatred.” Somehow, I just don’t think he’s serious. Otherwise, he needs to start with the President of the United States, work his way down through the entire country. And to be fair, before he shoved his foot in his mouth with that statement, the chief did say, “To ensure that we protect the 2nd Amendment by keeping firearms in the hands where they belong; law abiding Americans of sound mind, and not in the the hands of people that want to do us harm…” But I honestly think this was just a vain attempt to avoid having his entire statement dismissed as typical anti-gun, political drivel even if that’s exactly what much of it was.

This fact is, the criminal to which the chief was referring, as the chief admits, a prohibited person. A felon. A convicted bank robber. Someone who, under current law, is barred from buying or possessing a firearm. Something tells me, the weapons used in that robbery weren’t legally purchased and likely weren’t even “straw” purchased. A background check would mean nothing in a transaction between two criminals and the fact is, people who intend to do harm will always find a way. The only response people like Chief Acevedo seem to have for these situations is finding ways to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.


Interesting geographic representation of support for gun control

Screenshot from 2014-11-21 12:18:27
Support for Gun Control.

So I stumbled across this graphic today, intended to show where support for gun control lies in the US. I won’t claim that it’s at all scientific but, if the results are to be believed, I don’t think there are any surprises either. The greatest support comes from large population centers, often (but not always) the most crime ridden cities of their respective states, the red dots/areas on the map (and there aren’t a lot of them). Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, D.C., Philly, Trenton…None of them places that any reasonable person could call peaceful and quiet. Still, it looks nothing like a reflection of the alleged 90% of the population favoring stronger gun control so many anti-gunners often claim.