Additional details of the Plaxico Burress incident came to light at the New York Giants wide receiver’s arraignment yesterday afternoon. For earlier GP coverage, see this and this.

In the New York Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Police Department criticized the Giants, who they said neglected to notify the authorities of the shooting, and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, where Burress was treated, for failing to call the police about his gun-related injury, as state law requires.

The NFL says that it did, in fact, contact the police. Burress is out on $100,000 bail.

Here’s the story of what went down:

Burress arrived at the Latin Quarter nightclub in Manhattan at 1:20 a.m. Saturday morning, with four others, including two teammates.

The criminal complaint, released by prosecutors Monday, said that an onlooker then saw Burress near the V.I.P. area of the club holding a drink in his left hand and fidgeting his right hand in the area of the waistline of his pants. The witness then heard a single “pop” sound before hearing Burress say, “Take me to the hospital.”

Burress was on the ground, with his legs shaking, when a bloody gun — a .40-caliber Glock pistol — fell out of his pant leg and onto the floor, the onlooker said. Investigators believe that Pierce was standing next to Burress when the gun went off. The bullet, which broke through the skin of Burress’s right thigh and pierced muscle tissue, traveled through the leg before lodging itself somewhere in the club.

The handgun was later found, minus magazine and with an empty chamber, in teammate Antonio Pierce’s vehicle.

I think it’s safe to say that no one was following any safety rules. Or common sense. Or the law, for that matter.

Expect the Brady Bunch to jump on this and claim that Burress represents one of the “law abiding gun owners” and, as one, is an example of why gun ownership should be outlawed. Never mind that Burress was in possession of an illegal gun without a permit to carry any concealed weapon in a state that didn’t honor the permit he previously had in an establishment that serves alcohol and was drinking.

Gaston, North Carolina:

A would-be burglar who’d been scared off from one house by a 70-year-old woman found himself a few minutes later staring down the wrong end of a shotgun at another, police say.

And before the sun rose Sunday, Joshuah Scott Rutledge probably figured out that this northern Gaston County town wasn’t ripe for the picking.

“If they think Stanley is sleepy, they’ve got another thing coming,” said 56-year-old Phyllis Osborne, who now calls her 62-year-old husband Richard her “knight in shining armor.”

Rutledge, 26, of Oakboro was reportedly climbing through a bathroom window of a woman’s home on the 3500 block of N.C. 27 in Stanley at 4:30 a.m. Sunday when the woman, who’d had her 70th birthday the week before, spotted him and scared him away before he could get inside.

He then apparently went to a house across the street off N.C. 27 on Watts Street, this time making it inside.

But once inside he found himself staring at Richard Osborne and an old shotgun that his wife’s grandfather had once used to slaughter hogs. Whether the gun would still fire a shot remains in question.

Apparently, the punk didn’t feel lucky.

Something that needs to be constantly hammered when talking about gun control is that, when it comes to self defense, a gun is the only tool available that allows a huge segment of the population to equalize or neutralize the threat of criminals younger and stronger than they are.

And this doesn’t only apply to the very valid “but criminals would still have guns” argument. Even if you could “wave the magic wand” and make all firearms everywhere vanish in a poof, the older and weaker among us would be at the mercy of the young thug. Therefore, even if it were possible to 100% disarm 100% of the criminals, guns would be 100% necessary.

We should be asking “Why do gun control proponents want to make victims of senior citizens?“

Guns! Guns! Guns!: Assault rifles, high-capacity magazines flying off local shelves following election

In yet another article covering the recent rush on guns and accessories:

Two other local gun shop owners approached by the Odessa American reported similar rushes on guns, especially assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, which are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“High-powered assault rifles with high-capacity magazines” is how the story is told. Except, of course, that the weapons aren’t “high-powered,” they aren’t “assault rifles,” and the magazines aren’t “high-capacity.”

The high-cap magazine term is a place where the pro-gun side allowed the other side to frame the debate. 20 and 30-round magazines aren’t “high” capacity, they’re “standard” capacity. But no one, and I mean no one, sees it that way.

Magazines and ammo will be the next battleground.

Fran Quigley:

Glock 23 fully automatic pistols, Uzi nine millimeters, Colt 44 magnum Anacondas. Some cost less than $100.

Fully auto Glock 23s? Really?

Then there this from the writer’s companion:

He points to a Springfield XD 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol. “Not legal in California,” the box reads. “The only things these are used to hunt for is people,” Zelenka says.

No exaggeration there.

And regarding all the pants-wetting over the gunshow loophole, Tam happened to be at the same show and sold a gun. It seems that her experience didn’t quite fit Quigley’s narrative.

Yeah, so, that was my totally unregulated experience with selling to “anyone who plunked down the cash,” Mr. Quigley. But don’t let me disturb your preconceived notions with any pesky facts; you obviously went to the show expecting to see something, and anything you saw was going to be bent through the lens of your own perceptions.

From the Department of You Just Can’t Make This Shit Up:

One expert sees a darker motive driving some post-election gun purchasers.

“Why are white people buying assault weapons?” said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. “I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”

That wasn’t a drive-by comment in some discussion thread on some two-bit web site like GunPundit.com. That was in a story in the Chicago Tribune. Murdoc continues to think that the election of Obama is going to do just about as much harm as good to race relations in this country. (via Uncle and Armed and Safe)

Jeff Soyer finds the Idiot of the Day:

Here’s my take: all gun owners should immediately submit themselves for psychiatric examination, to determine the extent of their illness and begin treatment before they do harm to someone.

Rifled, single-shot hunting weapons aside, this country should immediately consider laws making the possession of any handgun or assault weapon evidence of serious and dangerous mental illness, and anyone having such a weapon on their possession should be subject to immediate immobilization, hospitalization and confinement for treatment.

Totally unfounded speculation time: The writer of that drivel has either been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness in the past or is close to someone who has. Just a guess, but it sure sounds like projection to Murdoc.

From Screwtape’s Blog:

My dear Wormwood,

It is a surprise to me to hear that the wife has taken the unusual step of buying a gun. Normally, it is the men who have an unusual fascination with these obviously phallic implements. Is suspect, well, more than suspect, that it is a result of her own guilty conscience. Feeling paranoia is a common human reaction to feeling guilt. The relationship between the two is worthy of much more study and observation.

Guns, as I should point out, have been an invaluable boon to our cause. A proliferation of them, wherever it is, leads to the happy result of producing more dead humans. This is always a good thing. Dead Christians (actual Christians) are good because they can no longer be a force for the Enemy in the world. Other dead humans are good because we can always use more food.

If you’re not familiar with C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, it’s written as series of instructional letters from a senior demon in Hell to a new demon just learning the ropes. In this way, Lewis explains Satan’s line of thinking and how the young demon is to go about corrupting the human he’s been assigned to ruin. Apparently, the writer here (my guess is that it’s not C.S. Lewis) wants to share his thoughts about the evils of guns.

It’s fairly predictable:

Humans, particularly the American species, are terribly amusing in their attempts to defend or downplay the actual nature and purpose of these weapons; which is, of course, to kill…Increasingly, the number of animals killed by these weapons pales in comparison to the number of humans killing each other with them. In this capacity, the gun has an unusual felicity. Bowed weapons, even ones capable of firing multiple arrows, have a slow reload time. Some larger guns - rifles and shotguns - have this same disadvantage. Other guns do not. Some of them are capable of firing round upon round upon round - reducing whatever target aimed at to a pulp. These weapons are less for killing even, than they are for total annihilation.

Still, to be clear, make no mistake that these weapons have only one purpose, and that is to kill.

Blah blah blah.

What’s sort of ironic is that an underlying point of The Screwtape Letters is that good people will not fall for the deceptions of the demons. Many will live a generally good life despite evil’s unceasing attempts to destroy them and the continuous effort to sell evil deeds and thoughts as “normal.”

I’m not familiar with the blog, so maybe the writer’s point is that bad people project their badness on to others just as demons do. But I doubt it.

If interested, Murdoc highly recommends the audio version of The Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese. It seems to be currently unavailable in the US except by import. I checked it out the library a while back and listened to it twice.

Incidentally, I love the concept of the Screwtape Blog. It’s the sort of thing I wish I had thought of.

The big Hudson nephew story prompted the makers of The Back-Up, a bedside shotgun rack, to issue this press release:

COULD A BEDSIDE SHOTGUN RACK HAVE SAVED JENNIFER HUDSON’S FAMILY FROM TRAGIC DEATH?

Chicago, IL (MMD Newswire) October 28, 2008 — Tragedy strikes in a Chicago home leaving 3 people dead and an Oscar winner forced to identify the bodies of her family.

Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother were gunned down in their home Friday. Could an invaluable device have saved their lives? It’s called The BackUp and it is a bedside shotgun rack.

More than a bit crass, in my opinion, because they use the names and specifics of a high-profile incident. If they had simply released a presser about how their shotgun rack could help homeowners defend themselves and supplied a few statistics about home invasions, I would have no problem with the timing.

While this advertising is more than a bit over the top, the reaction from critics is laughable. Here’s a selection:

• Worst Person of the Day
  Who would be disgusting enough to try and capitalize on a triple homicide, especially when one of the victims was only 7 years old?
• Company using Hudson deaths for promotion
• Jennifer Hudson family slayings used to tout gun-rack product in ad
  This one is funny because of the links below the headline:
  
  Apparently, it’s okay for the Chicago Tribune to capitalize, even while criticizing someone else for trying to capitalize.
• Sensitive Company Exploits Jennifer Hudson’s Tragedy in 24 Hours Flat

If using tragedies, especially those involving children and those getting nationwide news exposure, to promote a product is outlawed, the Brady Bunch and every gun control group in the country would be out of business in ten seconds.

So let’s do it.

I meant to post on this incident yesterday but didn’t get to it. An 8-year-old boy at a machine gun shoot event shot himself and died of his wounds. Obviously tragic, it isn’t clear to me how both the father (who was right there) and the range safety officer could have let this happen.

I’ve not been to one of these public-type machine gun events, but I guess I wouldn’t think they’d let little kids shoot them. And a little light weapon like an Uzi, with less mass to absorb the kick and a shorter barrel to more quickly point in a bad direction seems like it would probably be even more dangerous for a little shooter than a larger weapon.

Regardless, the father blew it big. I’m sure he knows it, too. I can’t imagine that.

Meanwhile: DA: criminal charges possible in boy’s Uzi death

Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Tuesday he hasn’t been able to find any law that would authorize a child to possess or fire a machine gun.

I thought laws were limits, as in: Shouldn’t he be looking for laws precluding a child to possess or fire a machine gun?

Of course, there’s this:

In response to this tragedy, Freedom States Alliance (FSA), a national coalition of gun violence prevention groups along with the New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence (NECPGV), are calling for legislation to be passed immediately that would require that no child under the age of 18-years-old be allowed to use or operate any fully automatic machine gun, or semi-automatic assault weapon under any circumstances including at a “machine gun shoot,” shooting competition or firearm demonstration.

Maybe I missed something. Was there any gun violence involved? If not, what are they doing getting in the mix?

More info and discussion at Alphecca.

Sebastian on the Brady Campaign announcing that they are “targeting state legislators who voted against sensible gun laws and electing candidates who will work to pass sensible gun laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people“:

They are targeting races in the Chicago suburbs. This is where the Brady’s are probably the strongest. If we have them only really fighting on their home turf, that’s a good development.

This is obviously a positive development, but let’s not forget that the battlefield could change considerably next month. If the Big O wins, things are going to be different.