Recently in Media Category
Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour
It's the Daily Mail, but given the direction of things in Britain these days I'm buying it:
David Green, 64, and his neighbours had been plagued by the youths from a nearby comprehensive school for months, and was advised by their headmaster to identify them so action could be taken.
But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the gang, who were aged around 17, he said one threatened to kill him while another called the police on his mobile.
And he claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.
When he started taking pictures, one of them called the cops. That's something right there, law-breakers asking the law for help. But the law sided with them.
Nothing to laugh about. This sort of thing is the natural next step after the right to defend oneself is outlawed. Note that I wrote that the right is outlawed, not removed. Big difference.
One thing worth laughing about is the Daily Mail's alt text for the image they included in the story:
Picture of yobs taken by David Green
Why is it that Green is apparently being treated like the yob?
Robb points out A simpleton's complete guide to practically everything
Ahab and Squeaky will be featuring Michael Bane on their show tonight. Bound to be interesting.
Battle Creek teen shot in leg by Police
Teen with assault rifle shot by Battle Creek police
Thursday in Michigan:
A 15-year-old with a 9mm assault rifle was shot by a Battle Creek police officer just after 1 a.m. Thursday.
Police responded to reports of a man with a gun and shots fired in the 100 block of Hubbard Street. When they arrived, they saw the person with the gun.
Police shot the gun-toting person. Later, they found out he was 15.
The officers shot when the boy pointed his weapon at them. He will recover.
The "9mm assault rifle" is likely something along the lines of a Hi-Point carbine.
Although ARs and other actual assault rifle-based weapons are available in 9mm, they aren't terribly common. And they're fairly expensive. Those Hi Point carbines can be found for under $200. For much more info, see Mr. Completely.
Even if this thing were a fully-atuo 9mm AR, something that some law enforcement agencies use, it would really be a submachine gun, not an assault rifle.
Although I'm sure someone has cooked something up, I'm not aware of any AK-based 9mm rifles.
Eric at Classical Values has a good post up on Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes
He points out a "favorable" new review by Natalie Pompilio of the Philadelphia Inquirer and adds:
I don't know what Natalie Pompilio's position is on gun control, and right now I don't care, because I am always delighted to see fair coverage of this issue -- especially the simple acknowledgement that gun owners can be regular human beings.
Like, who knew?
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column on SFGate:
Here is the majority of the court basically arguing that, in case you forgot, much of America still blindly loves its guns, and of course handguns are a nice addition to any God-fearing family's arsenal of ridiculous self-defense weaponry and therefore banning a device designed to do nothing but kill other humans is just plain wrong.
Why is it that those calling gun owners and religious people "bitter" and such always sound so, well, so bitter?
He'll get over it.
Or not. Who really cares?
Via Snowflakes.
Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides
It's only surprising if you haven't been paying attention at all:
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year--gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent.
The American Public Health Association argues that suicide attempts with firearms are more lethal. That's probably true, but removing guns doesn't remove suicide. Look at Japan, for instance.
When looking at firearms deaths and quoting statistics to support gun control, it would be fair to list deaths from crime and accidents. Suicides, killings in legal self defense, or by police do not support the gun control agenda. But the numbers sure help.
Marie Cocco is confused when she writes that the Supreme Court
reversed the historical interpretation to discover an individual right to bear arms.
In fact, that's not what it did. But it makes her feel better to tell the story that way, and who ever let a lie get in the way of gun reporting, anyway?
Via Soyer.
Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter. [emphasis Murdoc's]
Via the Free Constitution Blog.
As I noted earlier:
No matter which way the SCOTUS goes, their decision will define what the 2nd Amendment has been all along.
It's not that they're redefining it, and that this afternoon it will mean something different than it did yesterday. It's that they're going to decide what it's meant since the day it was written.
This is not a "new right." People are going to tell the story that way, but they're either mistaken or lying.
Here are the quick points I posted over at Murdoc Online:
- The official position of the United States of America is that the keeping and bearing of arms is an individual right.
- The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does not grant that right to citizens.
- It guarantees that government cannot infringe upon that right, the right that Just Is.
- The Court's ruling does not change what the 2nd Amendment means. It doesn't mean something different this afternoon than it meant yesterday. It has always meant it. Some people and some laws were just wrong when they claimed otherwise.
- This isn't the end of the gun control battle.
- But, to coin a phrase, it might be the end of the beginning of the gun control battle.
- Future debates will center on thing like the definition of "arms" and what "shall not be infringed" and "keep and bear" mean.
KDT via Rustmeister:
- Why aren't all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons and asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
- Where are the Dixie Chicks, and Sean Penn in his rescue boat?
- Why isn't the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem?
- Where are all the FEMA trucks and trailers?
- Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
- When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
- Where are all the 24/7 lurid news tales of cannibalism and unnecessary drownings?
- Why did Iowans evacuate so prematurely; why are they not holed up in deathtrap sports centers?
Read all of them at KDT's.
I think it's only fair to point out that, for all we know, Sean Penn WAS there with his rescue boat. We can't rule out the possibility that it sank again but he didn't get out this time and he's at the bottom of the river.
Regardless, Iowa seems to be getting by fine without him.
I found his headline odd:
Gun violence is everyone's problem
Sorta. It is everyone's problem. But there is predominately one socioeconomic group that comprises an overwhelming majority of both victims and perpetrators of gun violence. And, basically, until we can all put on our big boy pants and talk openly about that, there will be little impact on gun violence.
Recall the Baltimore Gun Homicide Map.
