They mostly come during the full moon. . .mostly

Well well well. The weirdos sure came out of the woodwork yesterday. The Virginia Tech shooting still leaves many unanswered questions, but there are people out there who will gladly answer them:

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTHI) - The Virginia Tech shooting on Thursday brings up an interesting topic back in the Hoosier State. An Indiana lawmaker wants to allow guns on college campuses.

Sounds like a plan. I like it. Then along comes some yayhoo to poo-poo the idea without really thinking about what they're saying:

"Police of all types are trained for situations like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. Students with gun permits are usually not."

Trained for what situation? The one yesterday? I don't think anyone has said that carrying a weapon for personal defense guarantees your survival, as can be seen with the slaying of the officer. Police officers are trained in policing, not getting ambushed. As for the 2007 VA Tech massacre, what is he suggesting? That police officers are trained to be shot in a classroom? Sure, cops have been trained to pool their resources together and hunt down an active shooter, but nobody is saying that students need a personal arm for that because finding and stopping a crazed gunman is not their job. It's has nothing to do with it. The concept of a student keeping a firearm for an active shooter scenario is that they won't be standing there with their dick in their hand if a shooter busts into the room shooting.

We see this time after time after time from ignorant cops, lawmakers and the media: blurring the lines between what a SWAT team uses firearms for -- offensive tactics -- and what everyone else (the general public) uses them for -- defensive tactics. The difference between the two is that cops on a SWAT team are generally not attacked without warning while peacefully receiving instruction in a classroom. If a student or teacher need their weapon, they won't need to go looking for the bad guy; the bad guy will be trying to systematically murder people several feet away. They won't be hard to spot.

"[For police] To come and find several people with guns drawn and to try and decide in a split second whether or not that person is acting appropriately or not would be almost impossible for a responding officer," Bill Mercier of the ISU Police Department said.

If an armed student gets in a shootout with a gunman, how long does Officer Mercier expect this to go on for before his merry men with guns get there? It's known to take a long time for the cops to respond, which is why law enforcement went from "wait for the SWAT team" like at Columbine, to "four man fire team of responding officers" like before the VA Tech massacre, to "first officer on scene goes after the shooter" -- time. The longer it takes for guys with guns to put holes in the psycho, the more lives the psycho will take. That highly trained law enforcement element that is equipped to handle an armed, murderous gunman arrive well after the shooter has had his way with his victims, which doesn't do much good for the poor folks trapped in the room with him. That goes for non-active shooter scenarios like forcible rape, aggrevated assault, robbery, savage mob beatings, and the like, too.

Take note that in yesterday's shooting at VA Tech, 15 minutes went by before anyone even called in that the cop had been shot in broad daylight in a parking lot. And whoopidee-doo that the responding law enforcement team had automatic weapons, body armor, radios, and wanted to find the bad guy and kick his ass; the gunman had finished the job and killed himself. The cavalry aren't there when the shooting starts -- the students are, hiding under a desk hoping to not get shot in the back of the head, because that's their only option. Of all the mass shootings in recent history that I recall, the Fort Hood shooting is the only one I know of where responding officers were there in time to exchange fire with the workplace violence guy crazed muslim extremist, and that attack was ironically in a place full of Soldiers who are trained to go after scumbags with firearms but were unarmed by shitty base policy.

Then we have the qualified experts weigh in:

Student Government President Nick Utterback says this isn't a law the SGA hopes to pass. "Just allowing more students to carry guns on campus with a permit that is easily obtained is just a dangerous situation for everyone," Utterback said.

And you qualify your claim with. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cricket. . . . . . cricket. . . . . . cricket.

That's right, nothing. If you make the personal choice to not have the means to prevent your untimely death via spree shooter, then good on you. You're right. Seriously. There's no wrong answer there, because it's your life; and to be quite honest there's a super small chance you will ever need that weapon and it's a huge pain in the ass to carry it. It's also a major responsibility, which is why very few students would likely chose to carry a firearm anyways, which is why this whole fiasco of allowing them amounts to nothing. Conversely, the few students that find it's worth the inconvenience to carry a weapon to protect their gift of life, and embrace the responsibility that comes with it. . . .well, those are the very people you would want sitting next to you when Jijadi Jim Jr. decides he's had enough of the infidel's poisonous teaching and starts shooting up the joint, and to be brutally honest, you don't possess the right to tell them that they can't.

What this boils down to is cops like officer Mercier can only see things from their own point of view, and haven't taken the time to consider what it's like for those who's job is not law enforcement. Or playing music:

"I can't stand up and dictate to the world: 'it's over -- no more guns'.

Yeah, because that would turn the world back to the peace and love that it used to be:

Look at all those joyfull people who blessedly haven't been exposed to firearms. What a wonderful time it was for all.

Gesturing to the statue, he said: "It was a bad day. But it was a bad day because someone took one of these and shot John."

Yes, Ringo, before those evil guns were created the world was a swell place because mankind hadn't figured yet how to hand out bad days.

For Ringo so loved the world that he gave his only begotten opinion. I'm not impressed.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand targets the ATF and U.S. AG Eric Holder

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says she will be backing a bill to crack down on corrupt gun runners and dealers.

Alriiiiight! Keepin' the streets safe by prosecuting those who sell guns to violent scumbags! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

I know right where she can start -- prosecuting an armed gang who brokered the sale of illegally purchased firearms for violent drug cartels who used those weapons to kill innocent people. ZING!!!

Oh, wait. . . .

Recently, State Attorney General Eric Schneidermann announced that his office plans to crackdown on illegal gun distribution in the state. In fact, a probe conducted by his office revealed that many gun sellers disregard state mandated background checks, according to the Associated Press.

Ohhhhhhhhh. You mean she's backing a STATE law that would make the process of buying and selling firearms in New York even more illegal and convoluted. . . . I read you now. For a minute there I thought a member of congress actually gave a shit about preventing violent people from using firearms to commit violent crimes. My bad. I see now that state commerce has captured the interest of Rep. Gillibrand (I thought she was pro-gun? David Codrea was right about her, you know).

Well, you can't blame a snake for biting any more than you can blame a revenuer for revenuin'.

Since I'm knuckle deep in this article now, I guess I should let the mocking begin. I did find this amusing:

An individual gun seller can is legally accountable for the guns they sell, but not a gun show operator.

What's a "gun seller can?" Is that like a can of man that sells guns? I'm imagining now a secret factory run by the NRA that packages men who sell firearms into little cans in order to execute an eeeeeevil covert plot to saturate the country with individual gun sellers. The logistics of it is genius -- a pickup truck can only handle perhaps a half dozen individual gun sellers in the bed; I can't even fathom how many cans of men will fit back there. Hundreds maybe? Thousands?

And "gun show operators?" I admit to seeing one or two of those guys at every gun show I've ever been to -- they're the ones wearing old camo, and decked out in cheap nylon holsters and vests with too many pockets, handing out High Points to kids like candy. They're easy to spot, with all those patches and urine stains on their uniforms, and more than a little creepy. I had no idea they were exempt from state laws! That's totally backwards! Rep. Gillibrand is absolutely right: Gun Show Special Warfare Operators should be accountable for the guns they sell, but not canned men who sell guns. They're in a can, so they can't do much harm. Besides, how many guns will fit in a can?

Just when you though it was over, there's more:

The proposed legislation toughens penalties for illegal gun sales. Traffickers could face nearly 20 years in prisons.

Holy shit! Not *A* prison; we're talking multiple prisons! From what I'm reading here, if a gun trafficker gets caught, the court could have him torn to pieces and sent to prisons all over the state! Maybe they'll put his head on a pike in one prison, and gibbet his bloody torso in another. That's a bit morbid, but it would surely do more for placing fear in illegal gun traffickers than a bill that targets basically anyone not perfectly rehersed in the law.

New York may very well have something here. . . .

First remove the beam from your own eye

Andy notes that many "gun control" states that pride themselves on strict gun laws aren't comparing so well to states with a bit more freedom. Maybe New York City Mayor Bloomberg should take a break from bashing Virginia and tend to his own issues.

DCs defacto gun ban

Since the only licensed gun dealer in DC has moved on, there's no way for a DC resident to buy a firearm because of federal law. A Bill written to have the DC government stand in as a gun dealer until the day someone can open up a shop has been withdrawn.

It does sound like the DC Mayor is trying to get one store open in the area, and hopefully this will be followed by several more. Choices are good.

Letting my imagination run wild, can you imagine the gun store commandos that would be in a government run gun shop? Or how about the speed and efficiency that you could expect in doing the paperwork? A government gun dealer probably wouldn't have stock on hand though; they would just do transfers. Oh, but how awesome would it be if DC was forced to sell handguns to its citizens!!! Talk about a watershed moment!

One trench at a time

A small town victory in Fairfax, Virginia where air gun legislation was addressed in order to bring it down to something less insane. It appears that despite media hype, there was no opposition to my fellow Virginians who stood in front of the Board of Stupervisors and supported the bill. VCDL President Phillip Van Cleave gives a down to earth statement about what it all means here in this video, and the reporter does a balanced job of covering the issue without butchering the facts.

Wish I had been there.

Pro gun win in Ohio

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Ohio lawmakers on Wednesday passed a bill allowing gun owners in the state to carry concealed weapons into bars and other establishments where alcohol is served.

The General Assembly passed the bill, which also eases restrictions on how guns can be transported in vehicles, in a 55-38 vote.

Good for Ohio. The last sentence in the article mentions that opponents think mixing guns and alcohol would be bad for the public, but they must not have read the law thoroughly as it explicitly states that guns and alcohol cannot be lawfully mixed. The same thing was argued here in Virginia when a similar law was passed, but the opponents didn't read the fine print apparently.

Gun Free Zonage

DC residents who wish to buy a gun have a huge problem on their hands: the one business in the district that can legally transfer firearms has lost its lease, and will take awhile to move to a new location and get set up. Naturally, some people are pissed:

Michelle Lane lives on Capitol Hill, and wanted a gun for protection and target practice. She bought two guns in Virginia: a Ruger LCR revolver and a Kahr K9 Elite 9mm. After buying them, she found out she couldn't have them shipped into the city.

"It's not fair," she tells WTOP. "I followed the law. Criminals bring guns into the city. It's frustrating."

I bet. Trying to do the right thing and not be contentious is basically going against the grain in DC.

While DC officials are doing their best to throw responsibility for this jammage on the back of Mr. Sykes - the man who has been doing transfers in the city, and who has now lost the lease - you can plainly see that the district has tried to paint this business into a corner in what could only be considered an effort to keep other businesses of the like out. DC politicians will usually saddle up their high-horse for other civil rights, but not for gun owners. That's the responsibility of someone else.

The zoning laws are particularly interesting:

Approval of a new location for Sykes isn't the only road block delaying District residents from getting handguns. Zoning requirements on where gun dealers can locate are strict, making it difficult for Sykes or any potential gun dealer to find a suitable location.

Kevin Shepard owns Second Amendment Safety and Security, and has had a Federal Firearms License since 2008, but has not been able to find a location to open his business. He says the zoning requirements are too restrictive.

"It's impacted my economic liberty," Sheppard says. "I'm trying to start a business and they're making it too difficult."

Again, painting the business of firearm transfers into a corner. And the idea that barring a business from selling or transferring a gun within 300 feet of a school is just asinine. What difference does that make? It's only a political diversion to parry the fact that DC does not want lawful gun owners in the city.

From The Sentinal.

Guns on campus

In Arizona, the House passes a law allowing guns to be carried on college campuses. It's now up to Governor Jan Brewer to sign. I'm counting down the days till we see all the blood on sidewalks state wide like in Utah.

Political seppuku

The Obama administration has apparently decided to jump aboard the gun control train and see what kind of wreck they can make of it. I am surprised at this; I expected that they would light the torches around the gun control altar after President Obama's re-election is determined. Either way, I don't see how there can even be an agreement when the vast majority sees gun ownership as being a basic human right, and not a political gemstone that needs to be placed on a political party's ring.

There's some good stuff in there, like here where President Obama lashes out at Congress for slacking on their duties to the American people:

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it," he wrote.

Oh, wait, actually he was directing that statement at firearms, and not necessarily firearms used against Americans by evil people. Silly me. Here's a catch-all statement that can mean so many things as to be virtually useless:

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on a gun."

I would offer that I could agree with that statement as long as "dangerous criminals" is strictly defined as criminals that have committed the most serious of an act such as violent rape, murder, or attempted murder, and not someone who verbally distrusts the government and has faded Reagan stickers on their bumper; and I would also add that the mechanism for keeping these dangerous criminals from getting their hands on a gun is by placing them in prison forever, and not delaying millions of non-dangerous people from buying guns at Wal-Mart. I think we may have something there. Sadly, I don't believe that that's the conclusion that President Obama and his administration is shooting for:

Obama called for "sound and effective" steps to prevent lawbreakers from obtaining guns. A system of criminal background checks must be better implemented and made more efficient, he said.

Hmmmmm. Preventing violent criminals from ever seeing the light of day again would qualify as "sound and effective," no? I'm thinking his intent though is to delay the purchase of a Colt at Gander Mountain by five-time serial rapist murderers on parole to the tune of a week or so, and not finding a way to keep them behind bars.

"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" he wrote.

He doesn't read gun blogs very much. This line here shows me that he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of gun owners these days. I would also add that congress has not made it apparent that confiscation is not on the top of their list, not even by a long shot. And in case you're wondering what type of people President Obama considers "dangerous criminals:"

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," Obama wrote.

The Army rejects amputees, paraplegics, and people who sleepwalk as being unfit for Service, so they should be barred from buying a gun? Is that where you're heading? Sounds like it's going to be an epic train wreck.

Compare and contrast

This morning the news was brimming with the developing story of three people dead and three wounded during two separate attacks in Manassas, Virginia. It appears that two families were gunned down in cold blood.

As sad as that may be, it is noted that this is the first murder in Manassas this year, and is also a rarity for multiple victims. For that I am thankful.

It's quite clear to me now that the single most profound instrument in preventing crime around here is the Potomac River; twenty miles East of Manassas it separates Prince George's county, which if you recall had fourteen murders in the first two weeks of this year, and DC, which has had ten murders this year already. Of the three locales, guess which one doesn't impede an American's right to protect themselves with a firearm?

While that may not be what makes mass violence rare on this side of the Potomac, it certainly doesn't make it common.

DC gun ownership up

By this surprisingly non-hostile article at the Washington Post, since DC's handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional over 1,400 guns have been registered in the district. Take into account though that there is only one place for DC residents to claim ownership of their purchased firearm due to DC not having any gun stores. In order for a US citizen to lawfully purchase a firearm, they have to buy it in their state of residence; DC is no different even though it's not a state, and the one fellow who is licensed to make transfers of guns in the district charges $125.

The gist of the article is that only the more affluent residents are buying guns, and when you consider that a Glock handgun - not expensive as far as handguns go - is between $550 and $650, and on top of that you have to pay for the $125 transfer fee, you can see why it's something that only the more well off can afford.

Someone needs to tell the guy in the caption on the article to keep his finger off the trigger. Just sayin. And Alan Gura gets quoted a few times in the article, showing in one part that he's a realist:

Police said they could provide no data on registered guns being stolen, misused or used in self-defense, nor could they cite any specific incidents.

"Oh, I'm sure there's been some misuse," said lawyer Alan Gura, who successfully argued against the ban before the Supreme Court. "People steal and misuse stuff every day, whether it's guns or cars or kitchen knives. It's no surprise that people steal stuff and do bad things. That's the ordinary course of life."

Too bad the anti-gunners aren't such realists.

Emotion makes for a baseless argument

Reading this Washington Post hit piece about how Colin Goddard is influencing lawmakers to enact gun control, one has to wonder why the author doesn't talk about the flip side of it all.

As you can read in the story, Goddard survived the gunman's attack at Virginia Tech, and the point is pushed that he carries more weight in the gun control argument because he knows first hand what it's like to be shot by an armed lunatic while at school, and the rest of us don't. There is no mention at all about why Goddard also carries weight to the argument that packing thousands of unarmed people in a small area with minimal security attracts armed lunatics of all types, and the outcome of an event like that will be the same despite whatever law gets passed to prevent it.

Again, for those who don't know:

The most fatal school massacre in US history was committed with a bomb.

The most fatal act of terrorism in the US was committed with commercial airliners hijacked using boxcutters.

The most fatal act of domestic terrorism in US history was committed with a bomb.

The second most fatal spree killing in modern world history was committed using a shotgun, a sword, and an axe, the first was committed with a rifle and grenades.

None of this is addressed in the article, nor is there any mention of potential unintended consequences. It seems that the sum of the story is that Goddard has an edge because he's been the unarmed victim getting bullets pumped into him while he lies defenseless on the ground, and that should be the best policy. He's also a fudd, so there's that too.

Arguments based entirely on emotion don't get much pull with me. How about putting some facts in there somewhere for the people who aren't so naive.

Gun bills in Virginia

The VCDL's blog, The Sentinel, has the latest on gun legislation in the Commonwealth.

See here for the Castle Doctrine bill, a bill to make it a violent felony to get caught with a gun on school property, and another to make it OK for cops and lawyers to be under the influence while carrying.

See here for a Virginia Supreme Court gun ruling, as well as about half a dozen new gun bills.

See here for eight more bills; two of them are Castle Doctrine and one of them is for Constitutional carry (no permit needed for CCW).

See here for a local media look into these proposed laws. I got a kick out of this from the second page:

Among the bills the group opposes, Goddard finds particularly onerous a bill from Del. Bill

Carrico that would exempt any firearms manufactured in Virginia, that remain in Virginia, from federal regulations.

Goddard called the bill "an absolutely, utterly stupid thing," and said there's no way Virginia could ensure that firearms made here don't leave the state.

And? Is there any way to ensure it right now? Has there ever been? Seems to me that if a scumbag in Virginia wanted to build a sheet metal Sten clone that's fully automatic for the sole purpose of gunning down lots of people in Nebraska, then there's no way a law or lack of one is going to make one bit of difference.

Help us lock up felons and anyone else

That's what I'm getting from this proposal from Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

"Baltimore can be a safer city, and with the help of the Maryland General Assembly, we can pass tougher penalties on illegal gun possession and we can continue to reducing gun violence to historic lows," said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

And who wouldn't want to reduce illegal gun possession, right? Wait though, what exactly is her definition of illegal gun possession?

She doesn't enlighten us on that, but her proposal gives you an indication:

The bills the mayor will push are for up to 15 years in prison for felons in possession of a gun and a mandatory 18 months in prison for anyone carrying an illegal and loaded weapon.

Let's break it down: Felons in possession of a gun. The Mayor starts off right out of the gate about repeat gun offenders who are dangerous bad guys, and that is what she would lead you to believe she is after, but she is not suggesting 15 years for a violent gun offense; she is saying that possession of a gun contrary to written code is grounds for 15 years off your life, regardless of intent. If an individual served a two year sentence forty years ago for possession of marijuana, that individual can get a 15 year sentence if they live in a residence with someone who owns a Marlin .22 rifle. Same individual in a car pool van that gets pulled over, and one of the passengers has a legal .25 auto in their pocket: does that count as a "felon in possession of a gun?" I would bet that it does.

Now, to the issue of anyone carrying an illegal and loaded weapon: carrying an unloaded weapon is useless unless you are carrying it to the range, and again, I've never seen that qualified. Usually laws are written in an attempt to cover the person who sticks their unloaded gun in the trunk of the car and goes to the shooting range, but even that gets hemmed up as in the case of Brian Aitken. And if you make guns as illegal as possible for anyone to own, you end up with a handy tool to make anyone a criminal. So really the law is aimed at anyone who has a gun and ammunition on or about their person, and there's a lot of grey in their for the legal minions to work with.

But what about the dangerous criminals who repeatedly get caught using a gun in the commission of a violent felony? How do we ensure that they go to prison for a long long time? If you have to ask that question to somebody, you're a retard. I mean that.

Fisking this tired mantra about strengthening gun laws as a means to put criminals behind bars is getting old. It has nothing at all to do with the criminals and everything to do with control of the general population, as they are the ones who are most likely to get hung up in this mess, and there are money making ventures in that.

If a violent scumbag repeatedly gets caught hurting people, then you already have the Nature and Cause to lock them up for eternity. A gun law is an inappropriate and unnecessary tool to that end. If there are gangbangers who won't stop shooting up the streets of Baltimore, than the next time you catch them committing a violent act, that is your chance to keep them out of society by using the laws against hurting people that have existed since Exodus. It ain't any harder than that.

So this whole "we can't stop them unless you pass this law" is a bunch of bullshit that needs to be called out.

DC murders down

According to the Washington Times, there were 131 homicides in the District in 2010, down nine percent from last year. It’s the lowest number of slayings since 1963.

While I'm reluctant to give quarter to DC's Police Chief or her insane crime lowering ideas, her reasoning on the tip line and community intel seem logical. Until there's some bona fide evidence that gunshot detectors do anything but cost a fortune, I'll dismiss the technology part on its face, and note that Chief Lanier made no mention of the hard work and long hours that DC cops put in to lower that homicide number. Shame on her.

The Times reports that it is the second straight year that homicides have declined in the city and the seventh time in 10 years that the nation’s capital has recorded fewer than 200 homicides.

Hold the phones!! Did that just say the second straight year? As if homicides have declined in two years instead of jumping up? I could have sworn I heard predictions about all the shootings, blood in the streets, and mass chaos that would surely stem from the Heller decision.

Who would have known that ordinary human beings could behave themselves?

Well, maybe not these guys; but it seems that the general population doesn't strike the notion to go out on a killing spree that day just because they have a Mossberg in the closet.

It's the culture of violence, stupid

It's absurd that political mouthpieces in DC keep hammering away with the idea that they can control the actions of people at some future time with new laws today. That is the whole concept behind gun laws; make it harder for people to buy them by passing the laws, and maybe they will choose a life that does not include crime.

Nowhere is this concept more tauted than in DC. The problem with it? How about this story:

As the funeral for 21-year-old Ashley McRae at Walker Memorial Baptist Church in the 2000 block of 13th Street let out and cars lined up for the funeral procession, shots rang out, Collins reported.

People were getting into a car, presumably to join the funeral procession, when shots were fired at that car, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said.

Two cars sped onto U Street where more shots were fired. One car flipped onto its roof, and another crashed into a truck. The incident ended at 11th and U streets.

Just to make it abundantly clear what happened yesterday: at a funeral for a girl shot to death over a simple domestic dispute, gang bangers attending the funeral taunted one another to the point where they decided it was best to not let the funeral procession even get to the location to put the first shooting victim in the ground; no, it was best to get into a vehicular firefight on a busy street and flip cars and kill one another.

The Wild West is so yesterday folks. We're talking new age stuff now -- the Wild East. Obviously what is needed here isn't a change in the violent culture that nobody wants to talk about, but some new laws. Because nothing shows you're dead serious about keeping the peace like some fresh ink on the books at City Hall:

"We are absolutely fed up with this madness, which is present today, but it has been present before," said Graham, who returned from vacation when he heard about the shooting. "And we need new legal remedies."

Mmmmmm, yeah. I feel it now. Give me those legal remedies! Every DC citizen should post them on their door to show those pesky gang bangers that shooting up a funeral or terrorizing a neighborhood can land you a lifetime decade in the slammer! That'll show em'!!

Hey jackass!! Something tells me that "Mess with the best and serve like the rest!!!" doesn't quite send the hardcore message that you intended. So I can get this straight, in my head, you're suggesting that the laws barring criminals from murdering, attempting to murder, discharging firearms in the streets, shooting from a moving vehicle, etc., are not strong enough legal remedies? More are needed? Like what, exactly? Shooting from a Vehicle in the First Degree?

That's what the revolving door of DC's justice system reeeeeeally needs! MORE HINGES!!

"This resulted from a taunting," said Councilman Jim Graham. "This was a taunting at a funeral! And we have this kind of a serious consequence as a result.

"The young girl whose funeral was held today, she's dead because she was talking to somebody other than her boyfriend at a club. This is the level that we're dealing with right now in terms of the madness and insanity that permeates these activities."

"It's a continuation of a pattern of violence in this city that's gone on too long," Weaver said.

We need some seriously worded stuff here, like Class A Felony Taunting While Attending a Funeral. There's no time to lose!

Why oh why somebody, anybody, is not bringing up the fact that there is a cultural problem that very well may be the key to the front door of the violence problem. But let's not get into that! It's TOO HARD!

There is another way, and that's to stop letting the gang bangers out of prison like six frickin' times, giving them the chance to wreak havoc. Compare and contrast the outcomes of the justice systems separated by that muddy water and tell me what works. How about instead of giving a convicted violent felon the benefit of the doubt, you try giving him three times the maximum sentence. Scumbags who are behind bars have a hard time shooting up city streets and flipping SUVs, so I hear.

Gun Court

An interesting concept.

Right off the bat, hearing that Birmingham is treating this like the war on drugs was a bit unsettling, but hearing that 95% of the people that find their way into this court are on drugs can be telling.

Then again, what constitutes a positive drug test? Popping positive for pseudoepedrine or something similar doesn't count in my book, but there is often no rhyme or reason on how a court sets the bar for that sort of thing.

The concept is to not ruin someone's life over the carrying of a firearm, which I can agree with as long as that individual is not some violent scumbag. That seems to be the whole thing. There is one fellow quoted in this article that sounds like he might not fit the profile of what the court is looking for; that being "19- to 23-year-olds who carry a gun because they think it looks cool."

OK, so younger men and women who are looking to get into trouble, hanging out with the wrong crowd, getting arrested on a non violent drug charge or shoplifting and looky-here-they-have-a-gun. They drew attention to themselves by acting irresponsibly, they're young, and they were carrying a gun. I don't necessarily disagree with that at all; but as sure as the sun rises, some poor guy who doesn't fit the narrative will get hung up in the cogs of this machine, and what then? In a perfect world, the judge would be able to tell that these individuals are not trouble prone, and were not trying to impress their friends. But gun laws are hardly clear, and you can't just run everyone who violates every arbitrary law through a gauntlet of drug testing, anger management counseling, weekly spot checks and such. That's what sounds like will happen though, which may be the gripe of the afore mentioned fellow who ended up in that court:

Project ICE detectives screen every gun seized by officers in the city. Those that don't rise to the level of federal prosecution -- such as carrying a pistol without a license or presenting a firearm -- are referred to Gun Court.

Doesn't it sound like every gun "crime" gets scrutiny? That alone is pretty scary, as gun laws are written to be arbitrary so as to catch as many people as possible. I would be pissed to get hit by some bored cop on some sort of technicality concerning the carry of a gun, and then end up in this court. Fortunately, it seems like the successful navigation of the hoops that they want you to jump through give you a clean bill of record, which is far better than what tends to happen right now.

I have to agree with this particular line of thinking from a Birmingham police Sgt:

"There is a responsibility in carrying a gun," said Birmingham police Sgt. Ron Sellers, who oversees the police department's role in the program. "If you choose not to be a responsible person, then we are going to teach you there are consequences to your action."

Fair enough. Those who do not control themselves will be controlled - a maxim of law. Let's just hope that this doesn't end up as a way to control people who do not need controlling.

I am a skeptic, and will forever be one, but right at the moment there seems to be an all or nothing approach to gun laws. Get hit on violating one, and it's your ass. This is at least an attempt to find middle ground and not ruin someone's life with a felony for a victimless non-violent crime. It's all on the system now to not screw it up.