search
top

Wednesday News

Is it Wednesday already? Where did half the week go? Perhaps time flies in a government shutdown. Now for the news:

Some complications in Montana when it comes to reporting mental health records. Many states have medical privacy laws that technically make reporting to NICS a state crime.

Marylanders are stocking up!

An outdoor writer in Delaware takes aim at gun control: “Next I purchased a Remington .22 caliber bolt-action single-shot rifle with money made delivering the Journal Every Evening. I was 11 or 12, and all I had to do was hand the man at the hardware store the money, and he gave me the rifle.” And you remember how many mass shootings they were having back then, right?

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s popularity continues to decline.

Gaining ground even on mom blogs. We need more women in the fight, for two reasons. One, we need this to disappear. We’ve made good progress, but I’d like to see no gender gap on the issue. Two, women are a lot more civically engaged than men.

What can one man with a pistol do? Kenya has strict gun control, but it would seem there are ways around it.

Florida introduces a bill to allow warning shots. To me the problem with the Alexander case was mandatory minimums, not the fact that warning shots are illegal. They aren’t if you’re justified in using deadly force. But a warning shot kind of suggests you weren’t, right?

How import marks destroy a gun’s value.

Back in the 1990s, the gun control folks were more open about their intentions. Now they “support the second amendment,” even if they still believe the same things.

Nuts, Racists and assholes.

There was a mass shooting in China where guns are banned. China also has a mass stabbing problem.

Sometimes I think tar and feathers are too good for them.

Paul Barrett has been offering advice to anti-gunners. Most of it has been good, like stop hating on gun owners.

7 Responses to “Wednesday News”

  1. great unknown says:

    “But a warning shot kind of suggests you weren’t, right?”
    Actually, no. Imminent danger is not the same as having the knife against your carotid. The warning shot is a non-lethal attempt to prevent the former from turning into the latter. You are informing the perp that a) I have a weapon b) it is loaded c) I am prepared to use it. If warning shots were not permitted, the “warning shot” would have to be center-of-mass.

    • Mat says:

      I don’t like the idea of legalizing “warning shots”. From articles I’ve read people defending themselves in DGU cases have a hard enough time showing that they were in fear of serious bodily harm/ death. Now your going to be put under a microscope and you’ll have to defend yourself that I was in fear of bodily harm/ death and I did not have the opportunity/ or a place to safely discharge a warning shot.

  2. janklow says:

    to be fair, Marylanders had better have already stocked up, because the ban is in effect now.

    …but i can tell you as Marylander that between first-time buyers and people like myself whose firearm budgets have gone through the roof, it’s been ridiculous.

  3. CarlosT says:

    The problem I have with warning shots is you’re deliberately missing a legitimate target and sending a bullet who knows where. Even if you fire into the ground, bullets can skip and go in unpredictable directions. I’d prefer not to fire unless I have to potentially use deadly force, and then only directed at a target that is a threat.

  4. Richard says:

    Barrett profoundly misstates the CO magazine law. He neglects the readily converted provision which outlaws any magazine with a removable floorplate. That is practically all of them. Per the statements from the sponsor, this was the intent. The governor has said that he won’t enforce this provision but he has no authority over local officials. This is one of the issues with the lawsuit.

  5. NUGUN Blog says:

    Likewise, one should be able to argue that a warning shot was NOT the use of deadly force.

    But sadly, the lawyers/courts do not seem to recognize that argument.

top