VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 10/3/15

Post by **OakRidgeStars** » Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:44:56

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Pet Supply Plus not anti-gun after all - rogue employee was the issue
2. [OR] Armed CHP holder in other building protected his classroom [VIDEO]
3. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon murderer got all his guns legally
4. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Roseberg residents say shooting shows citizens must be armed
5. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon Sheriff says “no" to gun control
6. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon AG says “gun laws not relevant”
7. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Milwaukee Sheriff: “gun-free zones kill"
8. Father of murdered TV reporter will campaign for gun control after he buys one
9. NRA host has message for the parents of slain WDBJ journalists [VIDEO]
10. Pizza delivery driver shoots teen robbery suspect
11. [DC] Police department doesn't track magazine capacity of seized guns [VIDEO]
12. [IL] Study learns Chicago criminals don't buy their guns legally
13. [TX] Free CHL classes for staffers in one Texas county
14. Salon: America has reached the gun control tipping point
15. Shock: As Americans bought 170 million guns, violent crime fell 51%
16. In Cancun, the U.S. gets played
17. Verbal Warnings
18. Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
19. Reloading Fall PSA: Don't forget to crimp

**************************************************
1. Pet Supply Plus not anti-gun after all - rogue employee was the issue
**************************************************

In the last Update, a member reported that an employee of Pet Supply Plus in Charlottesville ordered him to leave the store for openly carrying a handgun.

The manager has now taken action, showing how a store should handle such a thing. Good job by the manager in taking the bull by the horns and showing that the customer does come first.

Member Edward Martin forwarded me the following email from the Pet Supply Plus (Charlottesville) Franchise Manager Chris Hanson:

Mr Martin,

My name is Chris Hanson and I am the Franchise Manager for the Pet Supplies Plus store in Charlottesville. I appreciate your feedback and I just wanted to let you know that the actions of one team member at that store does not represent our store policy or our expectations of a team member. I have addressed the situation with the team member that your friend came into contact with that day and do not expect to have any other issues with any customer being treated in this manner. We support our customers rights to carry firearms legally, thus us not having any posted signs indicating otherwise. The team member acted out of his own concerns and had no right to address any customer in the fashion that he did. I did e-mail Mr. Soos and apologized for his experience in my store as well.

...

Thank you,

Chris Hanson
Franchise Manger
Pet Supplies Plus
1240 Seminole Tr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901

**************************************************
2. [OR] Armed CHP holder in other building protected his classroom [VIDEO]
**************************************************

The CHP holder made his classroom the safest on campus that day.

https://youtu.be/bK-Ht57AdBA

**************************************************
3. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon murderer got all his guns legally
**************************************************

So much for the wonders of background checks.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... d-legally/

or

http://tinyurl.com/njgxe2v

LA Times: All Guns Used In Oregon Attack Were Purchased ‘Legally’
by AWR Hawkins2 Oct 2015

The Los Angeles Times reports that after searching Umpqua Community College (UCC), Oregon and Chris Harper Mercer’s residence law enforcement officials recovered a total of 13 firearms belonging to Mercer–all of which were purchased “legally.”

According to the Times, law enforcement officials found six guns were at UCC and seven more at Mercer’s apartment.

As we have seen numerous times before, a report that the guns were purchased “legally” means the purchases included passing a background check. This makes Mercer just one more public attacker who cooperated fully with all gun control, then went on to commit heinous crimes against innocent life.

Other attackers and alleged attackers who have passed background checks for their guns Vester Lee Flangan (Virgina), include John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).

It is interesting to note that on the very day of the UCC shooting President Obama urged his fellow Democrats to “politicize” the shooting and push for the gun control that has eluded them to this point. That gun control is chiefly an expansion of background checks–the very background check so many public attackers blithely pass to acquire the guns they use to shoot people.

In reality, Obama and other Democrats should admit the impotency of background checks, drop their war on guns, and launch a war on gun free zones.

**************************************************
4. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Roseberg residents say shooting shows citizens must be armed
**************************************************

Thanks to member Walter Jackson for the link:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ust-armed/

or

http://tinyurl.com/o44xeo3

**************************************************
5. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon Sheriff says “no" to gun control
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Huckleberry for the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /73184562/

or

http://tinyurl.com/q34bmv8

The Oregon sheriff at the center of the local investigation into Thursday's mass shooting that left 10 dead at a community college has been a vociferous opponent of gun control legislation, saying he would even refuse to enforce such restrictions.

Douglas County sheriff John Hanlin was one of hundreds of sheriffs around the country who in 2013 vowed to stand against new gun control legislation. In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, he wrote that "any actions against, or in disregard for our U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment . . . would be irresponsible and an indisputable insult to the American people."

Hanlin wrote the letter after the shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 20 children and six staff members dead.

He wrote that he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun-control restrictions "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens."

"It is my position as sheriff of Douglas County, Oregon, that I will refuse to participate in, nor tolerate enforcement actions against citizens that are deemed unconstitutional," he told Biden.

Hanlin registered his opposition this year as state lawmakers considered requiring background checks on private, person-to-person gun sales.

Hanlin told a legislative committee in March that a background-check mandate wouldn't prevent criminals from getting firearms.

He said the state should combat gun violence by cracking down on convicted criminals found with guns, and by addressing people with unmanaged mental health issues.

At an evening press conference following Thursday's shootings at Umpqua Community College in southern Oregon, Hanlin told the media that he would never utter the name of the killer and he urged reporters not to publish the name of the gunman. A law enforcement official identified the killer to USA TODAY as Chris Mercer, 26.

"I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act," Hanlin said. "You will never hear me mention his name. He in no way deserves" any notoriety.

**************************************************
6. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Oregon AG says “gun laws not relevant”
**************************************************

Thanks to member George Overstreet for the link:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew ... evant-mass

or

http://tinyurl.com/o84pb6r

**************************************************
7. [OR] Antis take it on the chin: Milwaukee Sheriff: “gun-free zones kill”
**************************************************

Thanks to member Doug Kinney for the link:

https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/vi ... 945905238/

**************************************************
8. Father of murdered TV reporter will campaign for gun control after he buys one
**************************************************

Why am I not surprised?

Member Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:

From bearingarms.com: http://tinyurl.com/n98gftd
http://bearingarms.com/father-murder-vi ... -buys-one/

Father of murder victim will campaign for gun control after he buys one
by Bob Owens
August 31, 2015

The father of the young female reporter killed by a black gay former colleague obsessed with serial killers and imagined racial slights has announced that he is going to make gun control the focus of his life’s work… right after he buys one.

The father of slain TV reporter Alison Parker says he thinks he will have to buy a gun now that he has decided to be an outspoken advocate for tougher gun laws.

Adam Parker made the remarks Friday outside the station where his daughter worked. He said he currently doesn’t own a gun, but believes he will now have to buy one because his mission will be tougher gun laws.

He says background checks should be done on people who buy weapons at gun shows.

I feel a great deal of pity for Mr. Parker, who is clearly reeling from the loss of his daughter.

The poor man doesn’t seem to be aware of the fact he’s clearly stating his belief that firearms have an obvious defensive role to play in society. He’s proving our point as he contradicts himself.

Parker is sadly misguided in his belief that he is facing any sort of threat for his new (and convoluted) gun control views. There have been precisely zero instances of gun control supporters being murdered for their views by gun rights activists.

There were, however, 262 million people murdered by those who favored gun control in the 20th century alone.

Parker would also likely be surprised to discover that background checks are already required nationwide for firearms purchase conducted by a gun dealer (FFL), including those conducted at gun shows.

Update: Barbara Parker, mother of slain reporter Alison Parker, says that your natural right to armed self-defense enshrined in the Bill of Rights is only a perceived right.

“There are people out there whose minds we will never change,” she said. “If you are a parent, if you are a mother, if you have children — how can you look your child in the eye and say we are willing to allow you to be collateral damage in order to keep what some people perceive to be their constitutional rights? If we as a society are willing to accept that, what kind of society are we?”

To answer her question, I believe that we are a society who will not by laid to waste by government tyrannies, nor criminal conspiracies. We have the ability to fight and defeat both because we will fight retain the human right to armed self-defense. We will not give up our essential liberties for the illusion of temporary safety, and we will not give up the right to defend ourselves and our children simply because it didn’t save your child.

I’m truly sad that pathetic loser Vester Lee Flanagan murdered Alison Parker and Adam Ward, but you will not make my children suffer the destruction of their liberties as salve for your loss.

—

Another story:

From theguardian.com: http://tinyurl.com/o9rakup
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ng-details

Virginia shooting victim's father says he will need to buy a gun to defend himself
by Jessica Glenza and Amanda Holpuch
August 28, 2015

The father of Alison Parker, the journalist shot dead on live television on Wednesday, has said that now he is campaigning for gun control he will probably have to get a firearm to defend himself.

Andy Parker, spoke to reporters on Friday after he visited the television station, WDBJ7, where his daughter worked before being murdered - along with cameraman Adam Ward - by their former colleague Vester Lee Flanagan.

He continued to push for stricter gun control in the United States, where decades of mass shootings have failed to produce meaningful reform.

“I want to go to the Virginia legislature and I want them to look me in the eye and tell me why we can’t have a reasonable proposal, any reasonable background checks, the things common sense dictates,” Parker said. “I want them to look me in the eye and tell me why they won’t support that.”

He said that for any meaningful change to occur, reporters must keep reporting on gun control and politicians must stop being afraid of the powerful gun lobby, the NRA.

Yet, Parker said that he is “probably going to have to get a gun” because of the culture in the United States.

“When you’re in the media, as you know, and when you are taking on an issue like this, there are a lot of people who take exception to what you are saying, so I will probably have to do that,” Parker said.

He does not currently own a gun, but said: “I don’t want to take any chances.”

Earlier, the only survivor of the Virginia shooting has revealed new details of the terrifying event, through her husband.

On Wednesday, Vicki Gardner, executive director of the Smith Mountain Lake chamber of commerce, was being interviewed by Parker and Ward when Flanagan shot all three, killing Parker and Ward and injuring Gardner.

The gunman attempted to shoot Gardner several times, but was only able to fire once because of a weapon malfunction.

Having woken from a medically induced coma, Gardner is now recovering in Carilion Roanoke Memorial hospital, her husband told ABC News.

“He pulled the trigger several times, only fired once,” Tim Gardner said on Friday morning.

Parker was interviewing Gardner at a local boardwalk, for a story on tourism. The bright lights of Ward’s camera equipment stopped Gardner from seeing the approaching gunman, her husband said.

“He shot three times at my wife and she was trying to dodge everything,” Tim Gardner said. “He missed twice and then she dove to the ground and curled up in a ball, and that’s when he walked over and shot her in the back.”

A spokesperson for the Virginia medical examiner’s office in Roanoke said Friday that both Parker and Ward died of gunshot wounds. Parker died of gunshot wounds to the head and chest, and Ward of gunshot wounds to the head and torso. Both were ruled homicides. The medical examiner’s office declined to release further details.

As many as 40,000 people watched the attack as the station broadcast live to the local area, including Tim Gardner. The gunman later posted first-person videos of the murders on social media. The videos were quickly removed.

Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, hours later. Internal memos revealed that colleagues had pushed Flanagan to seek mental health help before he was dismissed from the station for threatening behavior.

WDBJ staff members have continued to broadcast, at times nearly in tears on air. Immediately after the incident, stunned workers said they worried the gunman would come to the station.

“I immediately think, ‘Is he coming to the station to kill us all?’” WDBJ assistant news director Greg Baldwin told ABC.

News outlets across the country responded to the shooting by posting message of support on social media, under the hashtag #WeStandWithWDBJ. The shooting has also renewed calls to stop the mentally ill from obtaining guns.

**************************************************
9. NRA host has message for the parents of slain WDBJ journalists [VIDEO]
**************************************************

From theblaze.com: http://tinyurl.com/ot5vu7j
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08 ... adam-ward/

NRA host has message for the parents of slain WDBJ journalists: "And to the parents of Alison Parker and Adam Ward ..."
by Oliver Darcy
August 31, 2015

NRA host Colion Noir recorded a video blasting gun control advocates for using the recent WDBJ shooting to push their agenda, going as far as to advise the parents of slain journalist Alison Parker to be careful emotion doesn’t blind them from seeing clearly as they move forward with their advocacy.

Noir opened up his nearly 10-minute video blasting individuals who immediately used the shooting to advance “common sense” gun laws.

“Turning this murder into a gun control dog and pony show, minutes after the shooting, because you can’t make sense of what just happened is ridiculous,” he said. “Look, I get it — when stuff like this happens, anyone with a heart is going to feel the need to do something about it. The problem is, there is an incredible disconnect regarding the topic of guns in this country.”

“There is nothing ‘common sense’ about something as violence and mental health,” the NRA commenter added after playing a reel of politicians demanding Congress pass “common sense” gun legislation.

Noir contended that there are many gun laws on the books, arguing that passing more pieces of legislation would not put an end to senseless violence. The NRA host added that he believes politicians can’t outright ban guns, so they aim to do so slowly in baby steps.

Noir concluded his video with a message to the parents of the slain journalists.

“And to the parents of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, I have no right to tell any parent how to grieve for the loss of their child. Grief-inspired advocacy can be extremely effective and powerful and I say run full speed to find a way to end violence like this. However, sometimes in a fight we can become so emotional everyone and thing starts looking like the enemy, even if they’re there to help us. I’m deeply sorry for your loss,” he said.

Parker’s father has said repeatedly that he will do everything in his power to push for gun control following the death of his daughter.

**************************************************
10. Pizza delivery driver shoots teen robbery suspect
**************************************************

Criminal to pizza delivery driver, “I would like my pizza with a little lead on the side”

Member Ruslan Ketenchiev emailed me this:

From wavy.com: http://tinyurl.com/oh4yc7g
http://wavy.com/2015/08/30/person-shot- ... f-norfolk/

Pizza delivery driver shoots teen robbery suspect
by Jake Ellis
August 30, 2015

NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) – Police say a Norfolk pizza delivery driver turned the tables on a teen robbery suspect.

Officers were called to the 900 block of Galt Street around 9:30 p.m. Sunday for the report of a shooting.

The investigation revealed a 15-year-old tried to rob a Chanello’s pizza delivery driver at gunpoint. But, the driver also had a gun and shot the teen.

Investigators charged the 15-year-old with robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He will remain at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital until he recovers from his injuries.

Police did not say if the delivery driver is facing any charges.

**************************************************
11. [DC] Police department doesn't track magazine capacity of seized guns [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:

From fox5dc.com: http://tinyurl.com/ofwrd5t
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/11595311-story

Police Department doesn't track magazine capacity of seized guns
by Emily Miller
August 25, 2015

WASHINGTON - D.C. is in a murder crisis this year. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Police Chief Cathy Lanier have been saying that "high-capacity guns" are a major cause.

But police sources tell me that they don't track the capacity of seized guns, so they have no reason that is the cause for the spike in homicides (sic).

“Guns continue to make their way into the hands of violent criminals,” said Bowser. “Unfortunately some of those guns have high-capacity magazines that inflict maximum harm.”

“Multiple of our cases (sic) have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” said Chief Lanier.

Last week, I asked the chief to back up her claim.

“In D.C., over ten rounds is high capacity, but your department doesn’t trace what kind of magazine size guns have. I’m asking when you say high capacity, where are you getting that information?" I asked.

“From the guns that we’ve recovered,” Lanier responded.

“So I'm talking about 100-round drum magazines -- that would be high capacity.”

She also added, “High-capacity magazines are magazines that are designed to enhance the normal capacity of a firearm.”

But a form police use when they get property in a crime has a section for firearms. It asks for a brand name -- a Glock would be an example for that column -- and then type -- such as a handgun or rifle.

Then there are other specifics. No. of shots is for how many rounds of ammunition is still in the gun when the police seize it.

But there is no section for ammunition capacity on the form, which means how many rounds the gun could hold. Sources in the police department said they just don’t track it.

“Information is power, so if I don't have anything to compare it against, I have to accept what you tell me,” said Sgt. Delroy Burton, chairman of the D.C. Police Union.

The police union said the lack of transparency is all about politics.

“I think it's incumbent upon the citizens of the District to put pressure on their elected officials and the mayor's office and force them to provide that information, provide a statistical breakdown,” said Burton.

The rank and file say the real cause for the murder spike is that the department is understaffed and Chief Lanier disbanded the vice units in the community.

“When she eliminated the vice units, what you hear is it created this vacuum, and that void in enforcement is being filled by the criminals who now feel much more free to walk around with illegal guns, sell drugs, gamble in public places,” Burton said.

With no tangible numbers, the question the public needs to know is why the mayor and police chief are now blaming guns with high-capacity magazines? We will continue to ask for the statistics on the murder crisis in D.C. and we will report what we find.

**************************************************
12. [IL] Study learns Chicago criminals don't buy their guns legally
**************************************************

From buzzpo.com: http://tinyurl.com/nqy3d4b
http://buzzpo.com/study-learns-chicago- ... s-legally/

Study learns Chicago criminals don't buy their guns legally
by Eric Reed
August 30, 2015

A recent study that was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab has learned that Chicago criminals do not acquire their guns from gun shops, gun shows or the internet.

The study examined and interviewed inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who are either facing current gun charges, or have a background consisting of firearms related convictions.

The study learned that virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gun shows, because that method is easily traceable. It’s much safer for a criminal to acquire firearms on the streets where they’re harder to keep track of, and that’s most criminals method of choice.

Furthermore, University of Chicago Crime lab co-director, Harold Pollack, said that criminals “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

Breitbart News reported:

The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.”

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

So as it turns out, the study proves what gun rights groups have been saying all along. Gun-grabbers advocating for universal background checks are barking up the wrong tree. They’re nothing more than smoke and mirrors; a colossal waste of time that only inconveniences the law-abiding citizen.

—

Another story:

From thefederalistpapers.org: http://tinyurl.com/qf58mdo
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/n ... their-guns

New study shows exactly how criminals get their guns
by V. Saxena

Liberals constantly scheme and plot to institute more gun regulations because they naively believe that criminals obtain guns the same way as everybody does — by buying them from a reputable online or in-person dealer.

Not surprisingly, liberals could not be more wrong…

According to a survey of 100 Cook County Jail inmates by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, criminals — or at least the ones at this particular jail — primarily obtain their weapons from “personal connections” on the streets.

Approximately 70 percent of the criminals surveyed revealed that “they got their guns from family, fellow gang members or through other social connections,” reported the Chicago Tribune.
The majority of criminals surveyed were likely felons, so they wouldn’t have been permitted to legally purchase a weapon from a dealer regardless.

“Some of the pathways people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant,” the crime lab’s co-director, Harold Pollack, explained to reporters.

He meant that the concern about criminals obtaining their weapons from the tried and true way were unnecessary, if not outright silly.

The survey also found that most of the criminals preferred handguns to military-style assault weapons like the AK-47, which by the way liberals would absolutely love to outlaw.

The moral of this story, courtesy Breitbart, is simple: “ackground checks place a burden on law-abiding citizens which criminals easily avoid” by simply not following the law in the first place.

Bingo!

**************************************************
13. [TX] Free CHL classes for staffers in one Texas county
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

From americanrifleman.org: http://tinyurl.com/qemsere
http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... as-county/

Free CHL classes for staffers in one Texas county
by Guy Sagi
August 19, 2015

Galveston County, Texas, staff members received an unexpected fringe benefit this week, thanks to the generosity of Judge Mark Henry and County Commissioners Ken Clark and Ryan Dennard—the ability to attend a concealed handgun license course free. The announcement went out Monday to every employee of Galveston County, Texas, which encompasses 873 square miles of the Lone Star State, including popular oceanside destination Galveston Island.

“The class was filled within five minutes of sending out the e-mail, and we’re still getting calls,” Judge Henry said. “We plan to host many more classes, and eventually include employees’ spouses as well.”

Judge Henry said the effort makes Galveston County the first in the country to offer this kind of free instruction to its staff. No county revenue is underwriting the effort, either, because he and Commissioners Clark and Dennard are paying for the class, which takes place Sept. 12 at Clear Creek Gun Range. The course covers responsible gun ownership and teaches participants about concealed carry laws in the Lone Star State—a prerequisite in receiving a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas. Whether employees decide to pursue a permit is a personal choice, although the firearm safety and handling knowledge they gain will serve them and the taxpayers they serve well for years to come. undefined

Judge Henry, the county’s top elected official who won his bench seat in 2011, is no stranger to firearms. The retired U.S. Air Force Major is a Federal Firearms License holder, a CHL holder and Life member of the NRA. His stated purpose is to encourage staff members to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That message hasn’t escaped Commissioners Clark and Dennard, who are in the first class to secure their carry permits.

County facilities that house jails or courthouses will remain off limits to concealed carry, although all other buildings—including parks and roads/bridges—could soon have employees with the ability and training to defend themselves, along with the innocent taxpayers they serve every day.

**************************************************
14. Salon: America has reached the gun control tipping point
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/oy5ugv6
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... ing-point/

Salon: America has reached the gun control tipping point
by AWR Hawkins
August 31, 2015

On August 30, Salon suggested society may have reached a tipping point, where Americans are unable–or unwilling–to think of supporting any new gun control proposed by “extremes.”

Salon makes this point via an interview with UCLA cognitive psychologist Keith Holyoak, who explained that Americans are now so entrenched on one side or the other that any real chance of passing more gun laws is less and less likely.

Because media is not like it used to be–there are now viable options to the mainstream’s bias–people have different outlets to which they can turn for news on certain events, and Holyoak says people instinctively turn to the outlets with which they most agree. He stressed that this pushes the minds of already-divided Americans further and further apart.

He said:

We know that people in the United States now get their information from media that support their beliefs. So people with other beliefs are not being exposed to the same evidence–that sort of pressure is going to lead to more extreme positions rather than some graceful convergence of minds.

Holyoak asserted that we are not “doomed to push to extremes forever and never reach agreement,” but he says that as Americans move down one path or another–a pro-Second Amendment path or an anti-Second Amendment position in this case–they continually pick up evidence, or so-called evidence, that reinforces their position, thereby keeping them on the path they have chosen.

And he highlighted secondary factors that many fail to take into consideration.

For example, Holyoak points to the role that “emotion” played in closing the door to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involvement in gun control via public health studies. He indicated that their proposed involvement triggered the same kind of response as other “hot-button debates [like] climate change [and] the anti-vaccination movement,” and once emotion is in charge, facts one way or another are casualties.

Because of these things–the constant feed of evidence combined with the occasional surge of emotion–even a new and highly grotesque attack like the one Vester Lee Flanagan committed on film leaves Americans politically unmotivated regarding gun control. Supporters of the Second Amendment are heartbroken that two innocent people lost their lives at the hands of an angry former co-worker, but they understand that the number of defense gun uses per year far outweighs criminal uses, so they are not willing to curtail Second Amendment rights any further on a crime-by-crime basis.

On the other side of the coin, anti-Second Amendment Americans have reacted to the Virginia attack the same way they reacted to the attack on the Aurora movie theater or Virginia Tech University, pushing the same policy they pushed for both of those–background checks–completely oblivious that the gunman who killed Parker and Ward passed a background check for his gun.

So it’s a stalemate. And when asked if there is a chance that crimes on the level of Flanagan’s may cause more Americans to support gun control in the future, Holyoak said, “My conjecture would be on the pessimistic side.”

**************************************************
15. Shock: As Americans bought 170 million guns, violent crime fell 51%
**************************************************

Member Dale Albritton emailed me this:

DUH!!!!! Guess the bad guys don't want to get shot!

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/p78cr3v
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-fell-51/

Shock: As Americans bought 170 million guns, violent crime fell 51%
by AWR Hawkins
August 31, 2015

On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has fallen “51 percent.”

The NRA tweeted, “Since ’91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%.”

This information squares with the findings of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the slightly shorter period of time from 1994 to 2009. For those years, CRS found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million firearms, and the 1993 “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

That is more than a 50 percent reduction in “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide.”

Then, in 2009—the year the CRS study ended—Obama took office and gun sales began their climb to record levels, which made covering the gap between the 118 million guns that had been purchased by 2009 and the “170 million new guns” that Americans would own by 2015 an easy gap to bridge.

Breitbart News previously reported that there were 21,093,273 background checks for firearms in 2013 alone. And each of those checks were on buyers who could have legally purchased multiple firearms.

The overarching message is simple—more guns, less crime. Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased.

**************************************************
16. In Cancun, the U.S. gets played
**************************************************

Member Bob Risacher emailed me this:

From weeklystandard.com: http://tinyurl.com/pkhgkxf
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blo ... 23052.html

In Cancun, the U.S. gets played
by Ted R. Bromund
August 31, 2015

The Conference of States Parties—the first meeting of nations that have ratified the controversial Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)—wrapped up in Cancun on Thursday. Because it’s wisely not ratified the ATT, the U.S. was there as an observer.

So was I. And on Thursday, I got to observe as the U.S. got played.

Nominally, the ATT is about controlling the illicit arms traffic, and about encouraging nations to show responsibility in whom they sell arms to. On its face, that’s a sensible idea. What isn’t so sensible is believing that a treaty will force nations to do what they evidently don’t want to do.

For example, the ATT will supposedly bring transparency to the arms trade by requiring nations to declare their arms imports and exports. Well, if they want to do that, they can: They don’t need a treaty to impose the responsibility.

The entire treaty is littered with similar paradoxes, and it’s further poisoned by the overweening tendency of the progressive activists who support it to spend most of their time blaming the U.S. (and Israel, of course) for the world’s problems.

The Senate, under the leadership of Republicans Jerry Moran and Jim Inhofe, has made it clear that the ATT isn’t wanted there, and the House, led by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, has been just as inhospitable. As a result, the U.S., a mere treaty signatory, didn’t have a vote at Cancun.

It wouldn’t have mattered if we did. When the U.S. had an opening chance to object in public to the conference’s rules, we didn’t take it. After that, decisions were taken by majority vote. Of course, voting isn’t everything: the U.S.’s voice is more important than a single vote.

Or so I thought. But not a lot at Cancun went our way. The CSP adopted a modified version of the UN’s assessment scale to fund its activities, meaning that, if we’re ever silly enough to ratify the treaty, we’ll be on the hook for 22 percent of its costs.

Against behind-the scenes objections by the U.S., the CSP also adopted majority rule decision-making. And it put the treaty’s secretariat in Geneva, where they will likely be housed with those of the U.N., even though the U.S. has always wanted to keep the treaty’s institutions separate.

But the kicker came on Thursday as the conference was wrapping up. One of the U.S.’s biggest objectives was to make sure that the secretariat stuck strictly to administrative duties, and didn’t become a headquarters for expanding, re-interpreting, and implementing the treaty.

Late Thursday, the president of the conference suddenly presented a new program of work for the secretariat, a program that wasn’t administrative at all, including “collating best practices on the implementation and operation of the Treaty,” and “identifying lessons learnt and need for adjustments in implementation.” That’s exactly what the U.S. didn’t want the secretariat to do.

The U.S. protested immediately. Not that it mattered, since we don’t have a vote, and we’d have been outvoted if we did. But smoothly, the President of the conference then explained that this wasn’t a document for the conference to adopt – just one that could be recorded as having been considered. And now that the U.S. had objected, the conference had indeed considered it.

Gotcha!

And that was that. The program of work, just as the U.S. didn’t want it to, went into the conference’s report. And that report was the kicker: It recorded a huge catalog of pro-treaty activist organizations, led out of alphabetical order by the Control Arms Coalition—which ran the show on their side—as having “participated in the work of the Meeting as observers.”

In a separate item, the report noted that a further eight organizations, including the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and The Heritage Foundation, had merely made “a request to participate in the work of the Meeting as observers.” In fact, we had been observers, though undoubtedly we didn’t participate as intimately as the activists.

But the conference’s report wasn’t about to acknowledge that. To its credit, the U.S. delegation again raised a protest, but the point had been made: some animals are more equal than others.

As always, the problem in Cancun wasn’t that the U.S. said the wrong things. Assistant Secretary of State Tom Countryman’s statement on what the treaty is (and is not) was admirable. The U.S. delegates were courteous to the skeptics and showed their usual professionalism. Indeed, one of our few advantages in Cancun was that our team obviously knows what it’s talking about.

The problem is that what the U.S. wants out of the treaty isn’t what the activists or most of its signatories want. We can argue; we can try to persuade, and we can speak. And all of that will have some impact. But all of that is not enough. Like much of what goes on at the U.N., the ATT is going to be one long struggle—not to achieve anything positive, but to limit the damage.

The picture isn’t all bleak. Indeed, there was a palpable sense at Cancun that the ATT’s balloon was leaking. With the U.S., China, Russia and India, among others, not having ratified it, the treaty represents a tiny, and mostly the European, share of the world’s arms trade.

The conference’s decision to put the treaty secretariat in Geneva just emphasizes the point: this is basically a regional European institution. The rest of the states party are mostly so ill-governed that they don’t have the ability to implement the treaty.

Until enough African and other nations accede to it, Europe will have the votes to run the show, and even then it will be hosting the secretariat and, together with Japan, paying an overwhelming share of the secretariat’s budget. And there is nothing we can do about it.

Well, there is one thing: stay out. As long as we’re on the outside, none of the other big players is likely to join. And if all of us stay out, the treaty will have no credibility as a truly global institution. If we give it time, the basic disinterest of most of the signatories in transparency, combined with their considerable lack of governing competence, will eat away at the treaty.

It won’t ever go away—nothing in the orbit of the UN system does—but it will become just another cob-webbed part of that system, lacking in credibility and content to shuffle on, zombie-like, without drive or purpose. That’s not great, but it’s not terrible: it will make the long struggle to limit the damage easier as it goes on.

As Thursday’s shenanigans show, the ATT is a rigged game. And the only way to win a rigged game is not to play. The alternative, as we found in Cancun, is to get played.

**************************************************
17. Verbal Warnings
**************************************************

Member Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:

From armedcitizennetwork.org: http://tinyurl.com/qxlzeao
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/verbal-warnings

Verbal Warnings: An Interview with Massad Ayoob
by Gila Hayes
September, 2015

Law abiding citizens work hard to know the law and operate within its limits. Sometimes, though, when the law is silent on an issue, Network members are not sure what duties are required, and never is that truer than in the question of when, why and how verbal warnings should be issued before shooting. I have long said that the Network is not in the business of teaching tactics, to which some have retorted that what to expect from the criminal justice system after a use of deadly force incident influences their tactics. With that in mind, we engaged internationally recognized firearms and use of force instructor, expert witness on use of force matters and Network Advisory Board member Massad Ayoob in a discussion of verbal warnings within the context of a self-defense incident.

eJournal: Members have asked whether they have any duty to give verbal warnings during use of force in self defense, and how to balance that against any tactical disadvantage suffered by giving away one’s position or other factors like revealing possession of a firearm. It is a difficult question from a legalities viewpoint, because there simply is not statutory law speaking to any such requirement.

Ayoob: I don’t think you are going to find anything in the case law, either, nor in the instructions to the jury. It is going to come under the totality of the circumstances.

Don’t blame me for that buzz phrase–it comes from the courts. The courts judge things within the totality of what the situation was. Even in a non-retreat requirements state, they are going to ask, “Did you keep the ball rolling? Could you have stopped this and choose not to or were too stupid to?”

If it comes out, perhaps, that verbal warnings might have been practical and could have been done in time, it may be an issue. Usually it is not. Usually, once the shooting starts, things have broken so fast that you really can’t find the time to give the guy Hamlet’s soliloquy.

eJournal: Acknowledging that we are not bound by statutory law to give warnings along the lines of, “I’ve got a gun, don’t come any closer,” when you say “it might come up,” in what context would failing to give a warning create problems?

Ayoob: The family of the deceased sues you after you shoot the home invader. We have all seen these families go on TV after a shooting, saying, “My dear Sonny can do no wrong.” “Sonny didn’t have a weapon, they must have planted it on him because police have been planting weapons on Sonny since he was a juvenile,” and “Sonny was just turning his life around before you gunned him down.”

The same people who will say, “Why didn’t you just shoot the gun out of his hand?” or “Why didn’t you shoot him in the leg?” will also say, “Why didn’t you just give him a chance? Why didn’t you warn him?”

The answer, of course, is, “A chance to do what? He was obviously going to kill me, and when that became apparent, no, I didn’t give him another chance to kill me.”

Does this accusation arise during civil litigation?

Ayoob: I think you will see it more in civil than you will in criminal, but it could come up in either one.

eJournal: In any of the cases in which you served as an expert witness, have you had to counter accusations that your client didn’t give the criminal a chance or didn’t warn that he was armed?

Ayoob: Goodness, yes, it came up in 2012, in Tennessee v. Shawn Armstrong. Shawn was an
estranged, battered wife, the husband had been stalking her, divorce was in process. She had gone target shooting on her family’s informal range on her family’s property. The husband got wind of where she might be and went out there and slashed her tires so she couldn’t escape. When she came down the hill from the shooting range, he confronted her and began beating her and stomping her.

She was carrying a gun, and curled up so he couldn’t get the gun. He left her lying there in a fetal position. She starts to rise to her feet, and as he walks back to his car, he stops, looks at her, and she sees in his eyes the resolution that he’s coming back to do it some more. She draws the gun and before a warning can be issued, if I recall, he comes very rapidly toward her, and when he is about three seconds away, she sees the rage in his face and realizes the one beating apparently is not enough. She opened fire, shot and killed him.

eJournal: Was she still on the ground when she fired?

Ayoob: She was seated on the ground with her legs out in front of her, starting to push herself upright.

eJournal: But not mobile?

Ayoob: Not mobile, and would have had a hard time running because he’d kicked her, among other places, on the leg and she had a bad bruise on the leg. In any case, the prosecutor who, like those I talk about in classes, seemed to major in drama and minor in law, did a very histrionic speech and acted like Al Pacino in The Humbling, [changes voice to basso delivery with extra vibrato] “Sh-e-e didn’t fire a warning shot; sh-e-e didn’t shoot him in the leg; sh-e-e-e shot that man in his chest and put him in his gra-a-ave”–with about three syllables in grave. The simple fact was, we determined he was no more than three seconds away from her and there wasn’t time to issue a warning, there wasn’t time to have a dialogue and it was most unlikely that the dialogue would have done any good.

The ability, opportunity and jeopardy were clearly present. There was another man with him who had not yet joined in the assault but had stood back and watched the assault, so she had to keep him in mind, too. So we had the many elements: he is larger and stronger; he has already beaten her to the ground; the kick in the leg among other things impaired her mobility; she is seated, he is standing; he had the force of numbers; and she knew he had had Army Ranger training and was highly competent in unarmed combat.

We got those points across to the jury, and they got it. Part of my job was to explain there was no time for warnings or warning shots or a shot to wound. The jury got that. Within half an hour, we had the acquittal. So, yes, it does come up.

eJournal: Do you get involved in civil litigation much or are you primarily called when someone is charged with a crime?

Ayoob: It is about 50-50.

eJournal: How does this issue play out in a civil complaint?

Ayoob: There’s one we’re doing now. It began as a “knock and talk” and the subject, when he comes to the door, instantly comes at the police with a weapon that is already in his hand. The other side is making a huge issue of, “Why didn’t you pound on his door screaming, ‘Police, Police!’?” The rationale, of course, is that they were not serving a warrant, it is a knock and talk for gathering information and you don’t do things at that particular hour that will wake the neighborhood that could appear embarrassing to the individual who’s door you’re knocking on. That will be decided this year later in court.

Yes, the lack of a so-called warning and announcement in that situation has become an issue.

eJournal: Outside of your own case files, are you aware of not giving verbal warnings before shooting being an issue in civil claims for damages or should we be more concerned about not doing so adversely influencing a jury in a criminal case?

Ayoob: I think that is the least of your concerns. When I say “totality of the circumstances,” it sounds like I am weaseling my way out of the question, but for example, maybe you think you’ve got someone in the house. If you end up having to shoot him when he kicks down the bedroom door, I would certainly expect plaintiff’s counsel to say, “Well, my poor, misguided deceased client probably would have turned and run if they had just shouted, ‘Get out, I have a gun.’”

And what our side will say, is “Look, your poor, misguided deceased client had broken into these peoples’ home, they had every reason to be in fear for their lives, and if he’d had a gun and they’d screamed, ‘I’ve got a gun’ and gave away their position, he could have started shooting through the door.”

There is always going to be that tactical balance and the individual has to assess the situation and then decide, “Do I want to attempt a verbal warning now or not?”

eJournal: How much of our brain power should we tie up on deciding what to say, when perhaps, as in the case of the battered woman you defended, concentration should be focusing on the “front sight and smooth press” of the trigger?

Ayoob: By the time you are concentrating on front sight-smooth press, the decision to shoot has been made. I don’t see a whole lot of point in trying to talk and shoot. What we have found is that if there is time to issue a warning, it makes it much, much clearer to every one including the eyewitnesses and the ear witnesses who the innocent person is.

Case in point, without mentioning names, we both remember a couple I taught here at Firearms Academy of Seattle many years ago. On a Thursday night, a night when both of them were always out of the house, the wife came home and it was dark, her husband’s car was not in the driveway, but the lights were on inside the house. She gets out of her car. She sees someone moving inside the house, and says to herself, “Let’s see, he doesn’t look like my husband, he’s shorter than my husband, he has a different complexion than my husband, that is not my husband!” Eye contact is made and before she can do anything insofar as calling for help on a cell phone or getting back into the car to drive away, he comes out of the house toward her.

He is carrying a bag of obviously stolen goods, and she knows there are firearms in the house that he has had access to, and she presumes he’s armed with one. She did exactly what we’d taught: she drew her pistol, she covered him, she shouted, “Don’t move!” and while there were no eyewitnesses, many neighbors heard the “Don’t move!” Her second command, if I recall correctly, was what we taught, “Don’t touch that weapon!” So in an instant, every ear witness knows, our female neighbor is facing someone with a weapon.

As he came toward her, she fired; he came toward her again, she fired again. Both shots struck home and the second proved fatal. It never even went in front of the grand jury; the detectives determined it to be a justifiable homicide and so reported it to the DA’s office and the matter was done.

I think in that case, having had time to give the appropriate commands made it clear to the witnesses, clear to the investigators, clear to everyone in the aftermath, who was who. The guy turned out to have a long, serious criminal record, had been burgling the home and had a bag full of stolen goods, and was foolish enough to continue assaultive behavior and died of his own misadventure as a result. I think certainly her use of the appropriate commands helped subsequently make that clear to the investigators.

eJournal: That story actually introduces the first two of the command sequence you teach. It seems to me that you’re teaching an appropriate script for specific circumstances.

Ayoob: Very much so. I think you should use prepared scripted commands for taking people at gunpoint with appropriate branching as the situation demands. I think you should do the same at any emergency scene, including an immediate post-shooting scene, where you have to galvanize onlookers into action because you can’t handle everything yourself–instructing someone to call police and an ambulance, for example.

The initial command sequence that I teach begins with “Don’t move!” when the suspect is at gun point, followed by “Drop that weapon!” if, let’s say, they’re holding a knife, or “Don’t touch that weapon,” if the weapon is in their belt or you’re not certain that they don’t have a weapon. The reason is, when it’s happening, you’ve got too much on your plate to be asking yourself, “Let’s see, what should I say?”

Where you absolutely do NOT, in my opinion, want a tape loop is in the aftermath. Maybe ten years ago, if the cops got to the scene and you said, “I was in fear for my life,” that would have been useful. Today, that advice has become so clichéd, that when a cop hears, [speaks mechanically] “I was in fear for my life,” the first thing that goes through their mind is, “Oh, great! Somebody killed somebody and had a script for what they were going to say to me.” Instantly, the credibility goes down the chute. So, while we give a checklist of certain things students need to establish with the responding and investigating officers as soon as possible, we tell them they need to do that in their own words based upon the circumstances.

Where you absolutely DO want memorized, scripted commands is taking someone at gun point and galvanizing assistance in the wake of any crisis, whether that is a car crash, a medical emergency or a situation where you’ve had to shoot someone in self defense.

eJournal: You got us to “Don’t touch that weapon!” If the assailant is compliant, what happens next?

Ayoob: It is going to depend. I tell my students, you are going to have to use your life experience in reading people. If this guy is just glaring at you with absolute hate and foaming at the mouth and vibrating with energy and you are barely in control, I would leave it there. You have the option of telling him, “Go, go away, get out of here.” Of course, cops don’t have that option; private citizens do. If it is someone that has been a consistent problem, the stalker, for example, this is probably the best chance you have to get him under control, so I would want to keep him at gunpoint until police have arrived. It is going to depend on the situation, it is going to depend on your reading of the suspect.

That is one of the cardinal differences between cops and civilians. Marty and I have a lot of years between us as cops, and if one of us on duty had taken a criminal suspect at gun point, then ordered him to run away, we would have been fired for cowardice and misfeasance of duty. The private citizen has no such duty. For them, it is often the easiest, simplest way to mitigate the likelihood of a confrontation.

eJournal: Many of the questions about verbal warnings indeed come from a lack of clarity about the differences between the duties of sworn law enforcement and the responsibilities of good citizens. Face it, to some degree, we are all “trained” by television. Since most if not all legal deadly force uses portrayed on TV entail police giving verbal commands first, the viewer gets that sequence stuck in their head: give commands before you shoot. They confuse entertainment with the law.

Ayoob: I am not aware of any law that requires a verbal statement. Certainly, if it can be made as in the case of our graduate, it is good if you can. That said, you don’t have to be babbling as you’re shooting. From Ray Chapman to John Farnam, in the old days the advice was, “If you’re going to run, run. If you’re going to shoot, shoot.” Yet Ray Chapman was the guy who came up with what is probably the most effective technique for shooting while you’re moving, held and to my knowledge still holds posthumously the record on the Mexican Defense Course, which involves shooting and moving, and he recognized that sometimes you can’t do the ideal thing, so therefore you’d better find a pretty good, effective way to do the less-than-ideal thing if you have to and be skilled at it. I think Chapman, in that respect, was the living embodiment of that principle.

eJournal: If we apply his inspirational example to this question, perhaps we’d better be prepared to talk if we need to talk, but recognize that shooting may need to follow close on the heels of the warning. But realistically, there are so many hazards a Network member may face, ranging from being robbed in public to the example you used earlier of a violent home invasion. Does location change what we need to verbalize?

Ayoob: Let’s say you’re a couple of doors down at the corner and as you come around the corner, you see a man beating a woman. My reaction would be to maintain a cover position, with my hand on my gun where he couldn’t see it, and shout, “Stop! Step away from that woman.” Now if he raises his hand and in it is a badge and he says, “NYPD Vice. I’m arresting this woman,” it’s going to be one of those moments I’m really glad I did not whip out my gun on him. If we don’t know who is who, we can’t go with stereotypes.

We all figure if we come along and see some big guy beating on some little guy, it is the stereotype of the bully and we are going to be the hero. We have to remember the big guy may be the innocent victim who just knocked the knife out of the shorter mugger’s hand and is trying to keep him from picking it back up from the ground. If we do not know to a certainty, we should not be pulling triggers or even waving guns.

eJournal: In some ways it is a simple subject; in some ways it gets pretty complex. We’ve seen a variety of training methods over the years to accustom students to giving verbal commands at gunpoint. I remember one of your drills, back in New Hampshire many years ago, where you played a very long recorded lecture while we, the students, held a target at gun point and interacted verbally with an imagined assailant.

Ayoob: When that gun comes out, the more time you’re trained with it, including giving thought that you might be holding someone at gun point and you’re going to have to be multi-tasking, the better. You’re going to have to be reading a changing situation, what the Supreme Court has recognized as a rapidly evolving set of circumstances, and you’re not going to be able to keep conscious focus on, “Oh, yeah, my finger is supposed to be up in register on the frame.” You have to have made that second nature.

There are going to be a whole lot of situations where it is going to be better for all of us if it’s resolved verbally, not ballistically. We have to remember that the gun is not the only choice that we have. It would be good if people worked force-on-force role-play enough and practiced their command sequence the way they practice drawing their gun. Practicing martial arts is fun, practicing drawing and shooting is fun; yelling at people for most of us is not fun. It is something that we have to have practiced and have to have nailed down.

I’ve found particularly doing it in a strong command voice probably keeps things from escalating. In my case, I’ve had a significant number of people at gunpoint and have never had to shoot a one of them. All have either submitted or fled right there. That is a whole lot easier than having to go through that number of shooting trials or excessive use of force trials.

eJournal: Likewise, I am sure that a good number of your graduates have also been spared post shooting trauma and legal aftermath by being able to control a budding threat through strong verbal commands. We’ve been so very fortunate to be able to learn these skills from you! I appreciate you teaching us threat management instead of just shooting.

**************************************************
18. Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
**************************************************

From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/ou3oojl
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... president/

Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
by S.A. Miller
August 26, 2015

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she felt “great heartache” over the shooting ambush that killed a TV news reporter and cameraman live on air in Virginia, pledging that as president she would fight for more gun-control laws.

“We have got to do something about gun violence in America — and I will take it on,” Mrs. Clinton said in an on-camera statement to reports while on campaign trail in Iowa.

In an emotional plea for more restrictive gun laws, Mrs. Clinton said that too many people known that the availability of firearms is a problem in the United States but avoid the subject because “it is hard.”

“It is a very political, difficult issue in America,” he said. “But I believe we are smart enough, we are compassionate enough to figure out how to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures so that whatever motivated this murderer, who eventually took his own life — we will not see more deaths, needless, senseless deaths.”

Mrs. Clinton expressed condolences and sympathies to the families of WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, who were killed in the attack during a morning live shot, and Vicki Gardner, executive director of the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce, who was being interviewed by Ms. Parker and was injured in the shooting.

“I feel just great heartache at what happened,” said the former first lady, senator and secretary of state.

Mrs. Clinton said that there was evidence that tougher gun laws would stop the gun violence, but gun-rights advocates dispute those claims.

She vowed not to “let another terrible incident go by without trying to do something more to prevent this incredible killing that is stalking our country and we’ve had so many terrible instances of it in the last two years,” she said.

“It happens every day and there is so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could put some timeout between the person who is upset because he got fired or the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this — that maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage,” Mrs. Clinton said.

**************************************************
19. Reloading Fall PSA: Don't forget to crimp
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

From thefirearmblog.com: http://tinyurl.com/pnz6u74
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... ry-images/

Reloading Fall PSA: Don't forget to crimp
by Katie A
August 27, 2015

A reloading PSA has popped up in a Facebook forum known as the Shooting Bench, complete with pictures to really hammer the message home. Apparently the reloader in question was loading .45-70s and failed to crimp; his account follows:

“Anyone ever wondered what an exploding .45-70 Marlin guide gun will do to a person’s hand. All my measurements and charges were correct. But I forgot to crimp the bullet. This caused the bullet to seat deeper and deeper with every shot which ultimately seated the bullet to a point were the pressures were dangerously high causing the pressure to build before the bullet could leave the barrel.” (spelling and punctuation his)

The original poster was not identified, but the damage to his hand is clear enough. According to the Shooting Bench the reloader was told his hand could not be fully sutured because there was such extensive tissue damage the doctors have been left with the option of grafts and the need to be able to remove necrotic tissue as time passes.

Warning, guys, the images of his hand are fairly graphic.

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]