One Year On

Finally, something good comes out of Washington DC: just one year after District of Columbia vs. Heller, DC homicides are on track to reach their lowest levels since 1964 -before the ban came into effect.

The Washington Post reports that DC had 66 homicides during the first half of the year, down from over 80 this time last year. If the trend continues, DC should report about 130-135 homicides for the year - well down from 189 last year, as well as the 494 back in 1991.

Perhaps, critics may argue that it is too early to tell if Heller vs. District of Columbia has finally turned DC's murder rate on its head. Nevertheless, the early signs do look promising.

A Tale of Two Stories

Over the last 24 hours there have been two shooting sprees, one in Alabama in which ten people died and another in Germany, in which 16 school students died.

Both are horrific. But it's interesting to see how The Dominion Post, Wellington's daily newspaper (for foreigners) reports the stories.

For the shootings in Alabama: a good half of the front cover of the "World" section taken up by this story, including three photos of the crime scenes, eyewitness accounts and detail of the events and perpetrator.

For the shootings in Germany: 10cm of one column used for this story, some of which was used for discussing previous school shootings in Germany. Although 9 people had died when the shootings had occurred and the story was newer, the German shooting spree was far more brutal.

It would seem that this is just an attempt to make the US seem worse.

A Victory for Liberty

The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the DC Gun Ban as unconstitutional -which is a big victory for Liberty, and the Right to Bear Arms. The DC Gun Ban, which has been in place for 32 years, has denied the residents the right to own firearms to defend themselves.

As for the criminals, the statistics speak for themselves. DC had 169 homicides in 2006 -most of them gun-related. 2006 was also one of the best years DC has had since the ban was implemented. Clearly, the ban has simply put more power into the hands of criminals and gangs. Just for the record, in 1991 DC had an unbelievable 484 murders -which is a shocking indictment on just how spectacularly the Ban has failed.

The DC Gun Ban hasn't worked -maybe Liberty can do better!

Libertarianz on Eye to Eye

As you may know, Peter Linton, who is the firearms spokesman for the Libertarianz, appeared in the most recent episode of Eye to Eye, where he was debating the right to own firearms, and in what situations they are necessary. Peter can be viewed on the Eye to Eye website here.

Luckily for Hone Harawira and Marie Dyhrberg, the episode was screened one day before the fatal shooting of Navtej Singh in South Auckland. Navtej Singh, a good, hardworking, honest man, was cooperating with theives at his South-Auckland liquor store when he was shot by a retard by means of a rifle. Did Navtej have any means of self-defence at his disposal?

Another "Gun Free" Shooting!

Two days ago, a maniac went on a rampage at the Northern Illinois University, and killed six civilians, five of whom died on the site, and himself. This is the second mass shooting in Illinois -one of America's crookedest and most socialist states- in the last month, the third in America in the last month, and the third mass shooting in a "gun-free zone" since VA Tech.

That's right, another gun-free zone (keep in mind that the great majority of schools in America and across the world are gun-free zones). Another lunatic who kills more than five people.

The other incident in Illinois was when a gunman walked into a suburban department store in Chicago and killed five women. In this case, also keep in mind that Chicago (along with all of America's major cities) is a gun-free zone, all but officially. Even though you can still own a gun, you wouldn't dare use it in public.

The other incident in the US this month happened in a small town hall outside St. Louis, Missouri. But only because armed guards were already protecting the town hall, could the gunman have been taken out effectively in that manner. In the other cases, the shootings stopped when the gunmen killed themselves!

Nebraska Shooting In a "Gun Free Zone"

Despite signs around the mall in Omaha, Nebraska telling people about the gun-free zone the mall was supposed to be, a lone rogue with his stepfather's gun still managed to kill eight people. Sounds like Virginia Tech. Or that mall in Colorado in which a similar thing happened.

Another factor of this shooting was the guards in the mall. Even though it was a private security force, no guard was armed. It's the same situation, when the criminals are armed, and any person who would otherwise be able to prevent incidents like this isn't.

About a month ago, a gunman killed five people in a school in Finland. Even though Finland actually has quite liberal gun laws, why was no one pouncing on that?

It Was in His Self-Defence, Though

There has been a lot of debate about the recent police incident in which a police officer in Christchurch fatally shot a man threatening him with a hammer.

Sad as that is, the police officer had the right to shoot him, as the man with the hammer (Stephen Bellingham) was threatening the officer. The officer undertook several cautions before firing the fatal shot, but none of them were successful. The officer was simply protecting his life, liberty and property.

Also, he is a policeman. The police routinely put themselves in harm's way to protect the general public, and undertake dangerous activities that no one in their right mind would choose to do, but their job-which was their personal choice-compels them to. Police voluntarily put themselves in harm's way for the good of me, you and the whole of NZ.

The incident also proves a good argument for tasers. Tasers are ideal for the police, as they can effectively take out a criminal whilst not killing him, and police don't have to go through situations like this.

And as I say:
"better a dead criminal than a dead policeman".

A Victory For Liberty!

I am pleased to know that Greg Carvell, the Auckland gun-shop owner who shot an intruder armed with a machete in his shop, has been declared innocent by two Judges in Auckland today. His actions in his shop were an excellent example of what should be done if a criminal threatens anyones life, liberty and property. He used his gun wisely and with constraint, and quite possibly also saved one of his customers their life. He should've been applauded for his actions, not convicted for him-for saving his life.

I thank the two Justices of the Peace who ruled out any criminality. They made an excellent decision to uphold civil liberties and the Right to Self-Defense.

Hmmmm, I wonder why there are no lefties complaining about the incident in the gun shop and complaining that guns should be more regulated?

Greg Carvell is a shining reason of why gun rights are so important: to protect Life, Liberty and Property.

Why the Right to Self-Defense is so Important

Having thought about this sensitive issue over the last few days, I have been thinking about some of the Controlists' arguments and how guns are necessary to protect the life, liberty and property of all citizens, from both rogue citizens-murderers and thiefs-and rogue governments.

Lets get one thing straight: guns will always be used for force. That is something that will never go away. But the reason gun rights are so important is that they provide a means of defense for the (potential) victim. After all, criminals don't care about the law. They'll still keep their guns, and buy their guns as they please. And, after all, what is to stop someone killing you with a sword, a knife or a bat? Guns aren't the only weapon, and criminals will use whatever means available to carry out their dirty work. Criminals kill because they want to, not to show the dangers of gun laws. I've said that before and it is as relevant as ever. I advocate guns for the use of defense, not force.

Indeed, there has been much compelling evidence in favor of less gun-control, in the interests of the victim. Perhaps most compelling is the fact that, if a rogue enters your house for the purpose of force, he is 80% likely to flee if you have a gun, even if he has a gun himself. Guns are used about 3-5 times more in defense than in offense. If you take away people's gun rights, you are saying that people have no right to defend your life, liberty and property. Some people need to think about the word law-breakers.

The second important reason why gun rights are so important is that the populace also needs to protect their life, liberty and property from rogue governments. After all, what George W Bush said, that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, is right. An armed populace is required to make sure the government stays within the limits of power.

Virginia Tech was not the only proudly gun-free zone where a mass-shooting happened. Once upon a time, in a gun-free mall in Colorado, an incident happened similar to the once at Virgina Tech. But, when someone has had the right to self-defense, aka a gun, was the situation ever as bad as what happened in the mall in Colorado and Virginia Tech?

More Evidence Against Gun Control

Some facts for the Gun-Controlists:

-In the last thirty years in Amerca, Gun circulation doubled. However, that has gone hand-in-hand with a drop in violent crimes by about 33%.
-In individual states, with every 1% increase in gun ownership, the violent crime rate drops 4.1%.
-Roughly 460,000 gun crimes occur in the US every year. But guns are used for defense 1,300,000-2,500,000 times in a year, which means guns are used in defense 3-5 times more than crimes committed with them.
-In crime situations, the criminal is more than 80% likely to flee if the defendant has a gun, even if he has a gun himself!
-Evidence has been done by American Government Departments into gun-control laws, and in one circumstance, researchers looked into 395 publications about 80 gun-control laws, and concluded that none have any effect at lowering the violent crime rate.

Perhaps the New York Times, who wrote this awful piece of crap, ought to listen:

"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage."

What's actually needed is less gun-control laws. And better journalists in the Big Apple, too.

(From the Cato Institute)

Why should Gun Laws prevent Someone from killing Someone Else?

After 32 people were shot by one lunatic who went on a shooting spree in Virginia Tech College, in the USA, many people are speaking out against America's "liberal" gun laws. John Communist Campbell said that "America learnt absolutely nothing from Columbine".

However, he is right for a change. America failed to learn that responsible teachers and staff in America's schools should have the right to bear arms in schools, for the protection of students and school property. It would've just taken one person to take out that nut. Instead, arms were disallowed on the VA Campus, allowing people who go and kill others to roam free.

Even if guns were banned in the States, it would've made no difference to the shooter. He wasn't out to show the world the dangers of American gun laws, he was out to kill people. That was his intention, and whether guns were banned or not his intention wouldn't have itchanged a bit. I refer to drug usage levels in the US as proof of that. The more government meddling, the worse the situation has become.

The killings in the College were not a failure of American gun laws. Instead, they were a failure to provide adequate defense for the students in the College. If someone had a right to self-defense in it, the shootings would've only been a minor problem compared to what they were.

Just because the lamb is defenseless doesn't mean the wolf won't eat it.