Gun Controller Advocates' Projection

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax was touted as  a "Gun Safety Champion" and feted by Giffords.   Gun Safety Champion is gun control advocate speak for Gun Banner.

He was the decisive vote for Virginia's Red Flag Law, a law that was touted as reducing violence with firearms by confiscating them from those suspected of potentially being a danger to themselves or others with them - a with a lack of proper due process to boot.

In short, he was a major advocate for gun bans under the guise of gun control.

And he just shot and murdered his wife before killing himself.

Bearing Arms: Former Lt. Governor and Giffords 'Gun Safety Champion' Kills Wife, Self in Northern Virginia

If his murder of his wife wasn't such a stupid and unforgivable criminal waste, one might almost be amused at the irony of his actions. 

Gun banners once again projecting their own homicidal violence onto the law abiding rest of us.

One should note that all of the laws that  Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax passed, every single one of them, did nothing to stop him from murdering his wife and then offing himself.

How About NO?

The Detroit News: Whitmer-created task force recommends ban on assault weapons

A group that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer created with the goal of making policy recommendations to save lives is urging state lawmakers to ban the possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

How about No there sparky? 

 It's always the same ignorant proposals from Democrats instead of actual measures known to work to curb violence - because that would put many of their supporters in prison where they belong rather than out on the streets committing crimes.

The task force also said devices that convert semiautomatic guns into fully automatic firearms — known as Glock switches — should also be banned. 

Glock Switches already are banned under Michigan and Federal law both.  

That this Task force does not know this leads me to suspect the knowledge and credibility of same and instead to consider that this is yet another progressive task force that knows little about firearms and instead is just pushing the Democrat's agenda.

People proposing regulations on things should not be ignorant of the things they are attempting to regulate, much less try to outright ban. 

A Gun Banning Democrat Undercuts One Of The Gun Banner's Main Arguments

Rep Jasmine Crockett (D), the rather outspoken and mouthy progressive, just opened her mouth again and demolished a cherished argument of the Democrats and gun banners.

You know,  it is the platitude they always make for gun bans: "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you!" 

The New York Post: Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett sparks backlash with ‘stupid’ claim about law enforcement: ‘Truly one of the dumbest statements ever made’

A clip from Crockett’s appearance on the “Grounded” podcast — which premiered last Wednesday — went viral as critics seized on her remarks.

“I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se,” she said.

There goes the entire progressive gun banner "police will protect you" argument right out the gun banner's window.

She's somewhat right, you know. 

While Rep. Crockett is indeed simplistically glossing over the effect of the presence of police as a deterrent to crime, and the lucky events when police are able to arrive to interdict a crime in progress, and the fact that police are indeed preventing future crimes by apprehending criminals for prior outstanding crimes, she's not completely wrong in this case.

She is in fact right in that statement as the police have no legal obligation to protect general members of the public from criminals nor indeed to stop crime before it occurs.

But, the Democrats and progressives really didn't want to make that public knowledge and instead used the claim that "the police will protect you" as an argument for the general populace's disarmament.

And she just opened her mouth and put an end to that argument. 

Mass Shooting In Detroit Was Unsurprisingly By The Usual Suspects

A mass shooting in Detroit that didn't make much of a wave in the national news and hasn't caught too much attention here aside from some initial calls by the Dems for more gun control.  Why? Well, the reason is unsurprising.

The Detroit Free Press: Detroit police: Illegal block party mass shooting was gang-related, $10K reward offered

Illegal block parties attended by youths with a gang dispute leading to a mass shooting as gang members swap rounds. 

The July 7 mass shooting that claimed the lives of two young people and injured 19 others in a hail of bullets during an illegal east-side block party was gang-related, the Detroit Police Department announced Thursday.

At least one of the victims was the intended target at the block party on Rossini Drive near Reno Street, Detroit Police Chief James White said in a video update, but did not elaborate further. Details about the party had been posted on social media prior to the event, drawing over 300 people to the area, some from more than 50 miles away.

The public has demanded answers since the mass shooting, the state's worst since at least 2013.

The answer is pretty simple, really: Tolerating and holding illegal block parties with gang members and "youths" attending and partying into the early hours of the morning results in a likely location with people consuming items that reduce their inhibitions, with many not knowing how to behave to begin with, and rather predictable resultant acts of violence. 

Illegal block parties attended by youths with a gang dispute leading to a mass shooting as gang members (most likely with prior felonies) swap rounds isn't a great hill for gun controllers to campaign on.  

This is especially so as at least some of the victims were gang members and potentially participants in the firefight, and the whole gathering was illegal to begin with.

Of course, they'll try to use it anyways, but it doesn't have the elements that would really let them dance in the blood.

Anyone who went there certainly violated the Do Not go to Stupid Places, with Stupid People, to do Stupid Things rule.

Why Do You Need A Gun In A Park?

Gun banners often ask why someone would possibly want a gun with them in a park.

Well, the presence of feral dogs is certainly one of many good reasons to do so, with the presence of feral humans being another good reason:

The Detroit Free Press:  Sheriff's deputies chased by pit bull dogs in Hines Park, shoot one as it neared officer

Wayne County and Detroit especially, due to irresponsible dog owners, have quite the feral dog problem with multiple instances of feral or just plain badly owned dogs attacking people.

As such, having "your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks" is as good advice today as when Thomas Jefferson gave it back in 1785.

Detroit City Council Comes Up With The Expected Answer To Detroit Gun-Related Crimes

Detroit is currently going through a notable spate of violent crimes that is also hitting the downtown and Greektown areas where the casinos are  (and where the money is of course). This is hampering the happy image of Detroit being a safe place to come and do business or enjoy yourself.  This makes the Detroit City politicos a tad nervous as it is bad for their image and the sweet tax money the Greektown casinos bring in.

Now, Detroit politicians aren't urging a crackdown on the criminals doing this crime.  Of course not. They're not, for example, pressing the prosecutors and Detroit judges to require bail, and not so easily let violent criminals back out on the street.  They're not calling for strict enforcement of the law, nor curfews on bands of unaccompanied "youths".  They're certainly not calling to quit the revolving-door-justice system, and absolutely not pushing to - dare I say - fund the police.

Nah, they're not actually going after criminals. 

But they have a solution that fits their progressive Democrat ideals, and it's the one they always turn to as their one-trick pony: 

Gun Control! - this time more (legal) gun (owner) free zones!

The Detroit Free Press:  Detroit City Council moves ahead with proposing gun-free zones, if state agrees

Detroit City Councilmember Mary Waters has a message for state lawmakers: Change existing gun laws to allow cities to establish gun-free zones.

As a result of increased violence in and around downtown Detroit, Waters proposed the establishment of gun-free zones by calling on state lawmakers to expeditiously approve changes to current gun laws, which council members approved on Tuesday.

. . . 

Council passed the two resolutions. The first calls for urging state lawmakers to pass a Senate bill that would give municipalities control over establishing gun-free zones on public grounds and the second calls for drafting a gun-free zone ordinance, complying with existing laws, that would require public or private events of 500 people or more that receive a permit from the city to be established as gun-free zones.

The second resolution also suggests areas like the riverfront, Greektown, Hart Plaza, Spirit Plaza and Campus Martius be designated as gun-free zones.

So instead of actual crowd control, or maybe trying some criminal control and enforcing the law, hiring more police,  or something else that would be effective, they're decided to fall back on symbolic gun control. 

Proposing that these areas that people visiting Detroit want to go to become "gun-free zones" means people have to go unarmed into gun-free zones to ensure criminals have easy pickings, as criminals don't care about these gun-free zones.  

Basically this is a post-Bruen-tantrum proposed law to create a whole bunch of "sensitive places" out of just about every single public space in the city.  So, the idea seems to be to ban law-abiding people from carrying firearms to protect themselves instead of actually dealing with the crime wave they've created with their "Defund The Police" / BLM / criminal empowerment song and dance.

Unfortunately, we have a Democrat-dominated state government that may just give it to them, and allow for a patchwork of ridiculous no-carry zones for the law abiding around the state.

How A Journo Can Tell Me She Doesn't Know WTF She's Talking About, Without Telling Me She Doesn't Know WTF She Is Talking About

The trouble with Leftist Journalists is not so much their ignorance as the tremendous number of things they know that ain't so.  But their ignorance doesn't help, either. 

Let's take this intrepid Washington Post (as rebroadcast in the Detroit News) correspondent, who in the very first sentence of her article shows she has no idea what she is talking about:

Q: Why are Republicans not reading the sentiment of the country and cobbling together a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians?

Yep, read that over again.  So much ignorance and smugness to unpack in one short sentence.  

The combination of the smug assumption as to "the sentiment of the country" combined with the pure ignorance of urging Republicans to support "a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians" is rather indicative. Not sure she could have fit in another narrative-approved buzz-word about semi-automatic firearms that are lawfully possessed by millions of Americans for legal purposes if she tried.

It's a great way for the journo to let us know she has no clue what she is talking about, and to count her opinion accordingly. The problem is that she influences people who who have infinitely more things they know when it comes to crime, firearms, and firearms law in this country that ain't so.

Let's Talk About The Michigan Dem's Tricky Proposed Firearms "Safe Storage" Bill

This bill basically amends current law to require firearms to be inaccessible to minors, with heavy penalties if not followed to the letter.

The bill  basically criminalizes anyone leaving a firearm unattended for any length of time and not locked up if the owner knows or should know a minor is present and could potentially obtain the firearm.  It also applies to someone visiting a residence where a minor may be present.  

Note it does not have to be your minor, it can be anyone's minor that ends up sending you to the clink.

Per the law, the firearm has to be in a locked box or container that is specifically designed for storing firearms, or unloaded with some kind of locking device that is designed for firearms.  

So per the phrasing of this law, if you store your firearms in a secure room with a lock on the door, that will not count.  You arguably could also be prosecuted for locking your guns in a safe that is not specifically a gun safe if something happens.  That's really awesome.

If you're visiting a place with a minor and leave a firearm there unattended for any reason that is also subject to the law.  The only way out of that would be to not only leave it in your vehicle but have it in a locked box or unloaded and locked with some sort of locking device. 

So yes, there's some definite traps in this law for the normal law-abiding gun owner that might think locking their guns up in a room with a lock on the door or in a locked cabinet or even in a lock-box that was not specifically designed for firearms would be acceptable.

Penalties include a misdemeanor if a minor obtains the firearm and then either

(i) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place. Or (ii) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in the presence of another person in a careless, reckless, or threatening manner.'

Now, if the minor commits a crime where someone including the minor gets hurt then it is a felony. If the minor kills someone or themselves it's a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for improper storage.

Rather draconian penalties and imposition of responsibility for the crimes of another there. Sadly, the Democrats seem to not desire any such law in regards to cars or other dangerous items. Funny, that.

Hilariously, the Department of Health and Human services is supposed to provide "Lethal counseling literature" to FFLs under this bill.  Note the appropriation for this  literature is what will prevent this law from being overturned by a referendum.

It is unknown as to whether this literature will actually counsel people on how to be lethal, but I have my doubts.   Much more likely is it will pay for anti-firearms ownership propaganda at taxpayer expense. One wonders what "lethal counseling literature" has to do with preventing minors from stealing a firearm and using it illegally, but there we are.

Michigan Dems Push Punitive Gun Control At The Capitol

The Detroit News: House Speaker bans employees from carrying firearms on House property

Clearly, the Democrat legislators do not trust their own employees.

We will note that there's been no violent firearm crime committed on the grounds of the capitol by an employee with a CPL  (Democrat or Republican) since, as far as anyone can tell, ever.

Simply being punitive towards gun owners, because they can.

This also leaves these employees nice and vulnerable when departing the capitol late at night and going to their cars.

They're also trying to have a policy prohibiting concealed carry at the capitol for non-employees.

On top of that legislation to ban carrying in any government owned or leased building has been introduced by the Dems, thus placing more obstacles on where law-abiding people may carry.  

After all, if the government leases even an office in a building, it would render the entire building off-limits.

Michigan Democrat's Punitive Gun Control Measures

At this point, they're doing it simply because they can. 

After all, having the House, Senate and Governor's mansion, along with the State Supreme Court, there's not a lot to stop them from pushing gun control for the sheer joy of pushing it and vindictively getting one over on gun owners who tend not to vote for them.

For impressive punitive-ness, they've introduced legislation to require a 14, yes 14, really, a 14-day waiting period before buying a firearm. 

There's no exception if you already own a firearm, which completely gets rid of their ridiculous claimed justification that 14 days will let a potential buyer bent on mayhem "cool down" and reconsider before doing anything criminal with the firearm. which is nonsense in and of itself. 

There's never been any actual data that this mythical cooling off period, whether 2 days, 3 days, or 14 days, does anything at all.

This proposed bill makes it illegal to transfer the firearm until 14 days after the date of sale for the firearm.  

Say goodbye to buying firearms at gunshows.   Private transactions will also get strange as you're going to have to meet the seller twice, after waiting 2 weeks after you paid them, to pickup your firearm. 

In short this is stupid, without any rational basis, and simply a Democrat being punitive because she can.

This week, I will get to the big three bills being forced through right now - the "safe storage bill", the "red flag" bill and the "registration bill".

Again, none of these things would have stopped the MSU killings, and they damn well know none of it would have, but the MSU killings are being used as an excuse to push this nonsense through.

How About NO?

The Detroit News: Oxford shooting survivors demand action on gun legislation in next 100 days

The Oxford school shooting, where 4 students were killed by a rather clearly mentally-disturbed fellow student is the current driver in Michgian for more ineffective gun control.

Let's note that prior to the shooting school officials and counselors had such warnings as the kid in question messing with dead animals, drawing pictures of massacres, etc.

To top it off, on the very morning of the shooting, and a charming drawing complete with a message that said: The Thoughts Won't Stop Help Me".

Generally that might be called a clue that the kid wasn't all right.

But, all they did was bring the parents in for a discussion, and they then let the kid go back to class without so much as a psych eval,  after throwing off every possible signal that he was about to cut loose.  So, within an hour of being sent back to class, he then commenced the school shooting.

So of course, the answer is ban guns, right?   

With a Democrat dominated House, Senate and Governorship here in Michigan, that seems to be where the're wrongly headed:

The student-led group focuses on pushing for the passage of state and federal laws that would lead to safer gun storage, universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

We will note the jerk in question used a handgun, not an "assault weapon" in the shooting incident.

We will also note safer storage won't do squat - the parents insist the gun used was locked up at the time it was taken by the kid, kid has claimed it was not locked up.

We already have a universal background check and it would have done nothing to change this incident.

And red flag laws - look if you're gonna ignore all the red flags - as they were for a damn long time with the kid in this incident -  such laws ain't gonna cut it there Chucky, nor would it have prevented this incident at all.

So, how about we quit with the knee-jerk gun control "solutions" that will not solve the problem?

 Instead how about we do the much harder and more effective thing and work on some serious mental health reform and having school officials do their damn jobs, and have school resource officers (or armed teachers but that gives Dems the vapors) at school to protect kids rather than leaving them vulnerable to the next shooter that gives off every sign but is completely ignored until he starts bustin' up the place?

NY's Ban On Carry In Houses Of Worship Is Asinine At Best

So, the left was all a-flutter that the FBI had declared they had learned of a "credible and widespread threat"  against Jewish houses of Worship in New Jersey, most conveniently close to the election.

Shortly after that announcement got broacast in the news near and far, the threat then apparently went away as it was apparently neither quite that credible nor that widespread.  It turns out to be to be a single source, a single autistic individual living at home posted a threat online and ckaimed he never ws actually plannign to do anything, and that he is now in the words of the FBI -  "no longer a threat to the community".

Most convenient, that. 

So, some Jews being warned of such a credible and widespread threat would like to carry firearms for the defense of themselves and their congregations in New York. After all, it seems only common-sense that in the face of credible threats of violence one should be allowed the practical tools to defend themselves.

Well, they can't.

Bearing Arms: NYS Jewish Gun Club’s scathing response to non-action of court

New York's law prohibiting lawful citizens from carrying firearms in houses of worship, currently being fought in the courts, though the courts are slow walking the cases, is asinine and leaves people disarmed and vulnerable to criminal attack from those who will not obey such laws. 

Democrats quite simply would prefer dead Jews who were unable to defend themselves to armed Jews.

That's unacceptable.

Not At Those Rates You Don't

So Oakland County being now Democrat-dominated, wants to do a gun "buy back" to show they're doing something.

The Detroit Free Press: Oakland County cops want to buy your gun

Those who turn in guns are to receive generic Visa-type gift cards. The amounts are $100 in exchange for a handgun, $200 for a long gun and $300 for an assault rifle, according to a news release. Those who turn in firearms will need to provide ID. The "gun buyback" is scheduled for Saturday, 10 a.m.-2 p.m., at these sites:

That's certainly below market rates for just about any firearm.

Since the County never owned these firearms calling this a "gun buyback" is an abuse of the English language and a word choice to suggest only the state should have firearms.

So this is basically a nice County-run crime-gun laundering scheme, using $45,000 of our tax dollars, to let criminals get rid of guns they've stolen or used in a crime, and it also nicely encourages people to go out and steal guns for cash.  

Really great incentives there.

Or, even worse, it is an attempt to swindle people who are ignorant of the value of the firearms  to give them up for a pittance in the name of social justice and "getting guns off the street"  -- guns that aren't on the streets now.

There's certainly some potential free market opportunities here to go to the locations listed in the article and offer a tad more than what the County is offering.  After all, form looking a the guns they have displayed on the table all of them are worth more than the County's offering price.

How Do You Stop A Violent Firearms-Using Criminal From Violating The Terms Of His Release In Detrorit?

Apparently, you do it by removing the terms of the release bond that he keeps violating, not by incarcerating him for his violations.

Yes, really.  The whole BLM style, woke, no cash bail, no "mass incarceration" crowd has managed to find quite a following in Detroit, where even violent criminals get released to walk the streets on the regular.

The Detroit News: Detroit shooting suspect's releases prompt police cries of judicial leniency

When Teddy Valentino Davis appeared before Wayne County Circuit Judge Michael Hathaway for a May 23 bond violation hearing, the 20-year-old defendant allegedly had breached his bond and tether conditions five times while awaiting trial on a concealed weapons charge.

The judge ensured there wouldn't be another tether violation — by ordering Davis' ankle device removed and releasing the defendant on his own recognizance.

Yep, he keeps violating the terms of his release bond, so instead of putting him in jail for the violation (and thus keeping him off the streets and stopping him from committing more violent crimes), the Judge removed the conditions of the bond and then released him without a bond. 

Tell me again how we need more gun control laws to stop firearms-related crime when actual criminals with longstanding and active firearms and violence related crimes on their record get released on their own recognizance, free to continue their crime sprees?

Let's note that his most recent violation puts him at the scene of a drive by shooting and he was carrying a gun with casings that matched those left at the shooting scene (yes casings evidence tends to be unreliable but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the caliber matches and likely his partial prints may be on the casings - so given the GPS match and firearm match held by a felon in possession he was probably involved). Oh, and his GPS tether shows him on location at other shooting scenes.

Again, this is no ordinary citizen, this is a convicted felon, found in possession of a firearm, who has used that firearm in crimes, found with more firearms, been positively located at shooting scenes when shootings were going on, and was seen on social media to brandish firearms and threaten people.

One would think a felon in possession with a history of violence and outstanding threats against identifiable persons would be properly incarcerated.

But no, he's set free to commit more crimes and increase the statistics on "gun violence", because per the ACLU and fellow travellers, the bail system hurts minorities, so it is per their beliefs, better that he be out on the street to go around and shoot minorities such as himself.

Make of that what you will. 

But quite simply, I'd pay no heed to anyone calling for more gun control laws who also advocates the no cash bail and revolving door system for actual criminals to be let free and commit more crimes with and without guns. 

Given they advocate leaving criminals free to roam and commit violent crimes, even as they commit clear crimes with firearms, while at the same time calling for gun bans shows they are fundamentally unserious about dealing with crime, including gun crime, and instead seek disarmament of law-abiding folks leaving them prey for the criminals they keep releasing.

So How Many Laws Failed In The Highland Park Killings?

The City of Highland Park where the shooting took place bans "Assault Weapons" within the city.

To everyone's (assuming everyone is a progressive who claims gun control laws work) obvious surprise, it didn't work.

Even with the longstanding ban, an "Assault Weapon" (type still unknown) was clearly within the City of Highland Park and used for this attack as the killer just up and ignored the law.   

Clearly an impossibility as the City of Highland Park banned such, right?

The State of Illinois also has a much touted "red flag" law that, given the impressive history of violence and threats from the alleged killer, should have prevented him from having firearms.

To everyone's obvious surprise, it didn't work.  

The killer after threatening to kill people in 2019 had over 16 knives and swords taken from him and then was left free to go forth and purchase a firearm and do some killing.

This is the flaw with red flag laws that conservatives have pointed out time and time again: 

You take away present weapons but leave someone who you clearly believe is a deadly threat free to roam around, acquire other weapons, and commit deadly acts without any follow-up.  

Sounds like a great idea. 

Yet again this is another killer "known to police". 

The killer even released a video in 2021 showing him gunning down people in a parade.  Law enforcement and everyone else did nothing.

Good going there proponents of red flag laws, the laws "worked" exactly as you designed them to do, which is not well at all.

We can also note the 2019 incident led to him getting mental health treatment that likely should have disqualified him from buying firearms as he was a clear danger to himself and others, yet clearly the system let him slip by yet again.

With all this history he was still issued an Illinois Firearms Owners Identity Card and able to buy firearms with no hindrance. 

He then violated Illinois firearm transport laws to carry out his crime. 

He then, of course,  went on to repeatedly violate Illinois' laws against murder and attempted murder.

Big Surprise.

But never fear,  the prosecutor is now promising to charge him with “dozens more charges centering around each of the victims.”  

That's going to be super-effective and should really teach him not to kill people in the future, now won't it?

Gun Banners Show They Are Not About Reducing Crime With Guns

the Progressive Gun Banners keep talking about banning guns, ostensibly to reduce crime committed with guns,  but at the same time refuse to enforce already existing firearms laws against criminals using guns in crime.

Let's take LA's prosecutor George Gascon for example.

While he's all in favor of gun control  - read gun bans and disarmament of the law-abiding, he's been very open and vociferous about not prosecuting criminals who actually use guns in their crimes.

He eliminated enhanced sentences for using firearms in crimes, leading criminals using guns to get paltry sentences that let them out to commit crimes again.   

He eliminated the enhancement for being in a gang and committing crimes, thus allowing gang violence to flourish.

He eliminated cash bail, allowing criminals to speed up the already quick-moving revolving door form arrest back to the streets.

This has consequences: Gunman who shot dead two cops at motel near Los Angeles was on PROBATION for carrying a gun and has been banned from owning a weapon since 2011: Woke LA DA George Gascon is slammed for 'soft-on-crime' policies

The deaths of those two police officers on June 14, 2022 is on two heads - the scum who shot and killed them, and the scum George Gascon who made sure the killer was released and free to commit murder when he should have been locked up with enhanced sentences for his multiple felonies - includign his beign a felon in possession of a firearm -  laws already on the books to incarcerate dangerous criminals using firearms in crime applied.

Gun banners are demonstrably not acting in good faith when they seek to disarm the law-abiding, yet go out of their woke way to release criminals actually using firearms in crimes back onto the streets to commit more crimes. 

Gun control is demonstrably not about a reduction in crime or crime control. 

Instead, it is about disarming the law-abiding and leaving them at the hands of criminals constantly allowed to commit crimes, often using guns that these progressives claim they want banned.

The Gun Banners Finally Got One

There's been a spate of recent shootings that get in the news and then quickly drop out due to the facts of the incidents not matching the preferred narrative.

For example, the shooting at the South Carolina Mall:  Wrong color palette and dispute among rivals.

Or, for example, the Milwaukee shooting. Again wrong color palette.  Shooters do not fit the narrative. It seems to have really dropped out of the news rather quickly once that came out.

The California Church shooting?  Nope, again wrong color palette. Shooter does not fit the narrative. Expect this one to also drop from the media's interest.

But now with Buffalo, the gun banners are like:

After all it's finally a Male. White, dumb-ass, also a clearly racist dickhead per his manifesto (assuming its actually his).  Can't ask for a better fit for a gun control narrative.

Little problem with that, it seems he's a weird variety racist leftist greenie type (assuming his manifesto is even his).  On top of that it turns out he was known to police and was - surprising no one - known to have mental problems but yet again unaccountably, balls were again dropped and  yet again no follow-through and no action taken until he went off and committed.

The  Detroit News: Prior threat, hospital stay under scrutiny for accused Buffalo shooter

The Gun Banners, Democrats, and Biden are going to milk this one for all it's worth.

How To Mislead With Statistics - New England Journal Of Medicine And Firearms Edition

You've probably seen the headlines today, echoed and repeated throughout the media along the lines of of:

Firearms surpass motor vehicles as leading cause of death among kids, UM researchers say

Of course, it depends on who you classify as "kids".  In order to get away with this misleading statement designed to cause panic and a demand for someone to do something, you have to play with the numbers a bit.  

The analysis, based on Centers for Disease Control mortality data from 2020 and published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that firearm-related deaths among children and adolescents age 1 to 19 increased 29% from 2019 to 2020.

Yep, they're doing the 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds are children when it comes to death by firearm.

Interestingly enough, that age range is how the CDC classifies children - but only for firearms death. For example for drowning deaths the age range for "children" per the CDC is from zero to 17. It doesn't include 18 or 19 because for drowning, that's an adult.

This is most likely due to most firearm deaths and especially murders being in the 18-19 year old prime criminal cohort, so the numbers can make it appear that children are being murdered.

The study linked to fails to breakdown deaths by age range, so we can't see what the death rate is if we exclude the 18 and 19 year old adults from the mix. But interestingly enough does look deaths of the 0-19 age range by race and the result is completely unsurprising.  It shows the vast majority are male Blacks a -- trend that has remained the same in 2019 and 2020 and with more than double the mortality of anyone else, and while hard to be sure, practically equal to or more than all other races put together. 

Black male mortality by firearms also shows the largest increase in 2020 which matches the current crime wave in Democrat-run cities after the BLM movement and soft-on-crime prosecutors have had their way.

Using 18 and 19 year old death stats to pump up "child deaths" is both painfully dishonest and manipulative, especially as gun deaths seem to be the only death that gets this extra boost to pump up the "kid death" numbers.  Of course the study calls for more funding - for more biased BS studies designed for advocacy rather than information.

How about NEJM and CDC re-run the study without the 18 and 19 year olds polluting thew statistics and then let us know what the numbers are, ok?

The CDC Should Have Learned By Now To Stay In Its Own Lane

But they have not.

Remember when the CDC decided to have mission creep and pontificate and weigh in on the social side of things, producing studies on bullying and gun control (aside from funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, natch) leaving it woefully inept when it came to deal with its core function - disease control - with the coronavirus pandemic?

Good times.

Well, those times are back.

After all nice sounding platitudes and policy making for social issues real or imagined is easy, dealing with viruses is rather hard. 

Red State: The CDC Is Coming for Your Guns

Yes, the CDC under the Biden Administration is again trying to paint gun control as a public health matter and an epidemic that would call for emergency health powers in response.   

Guns are not a disease nor a virus. While it is impossible for the CDC to not be political, it's not too much to ask that they stick to their core function - disease control - at least until they can perform that core function competently -   before branching out into other Democrat policy preferences outside of the disease arena.

The Next Time Someone Says A Civilian Doesn't Need More Than A 10-Round Magazine . . .

You can show him this video:

Video is courtesy of Scholl Security Group from their Facebook page.

Note that it took over a dozen shots on Mongo, and he kept on advancing towards the victim even after absorbing a dozen hits.

Now imagine you're the victim on the ground and the police aren't there and all you have is a firearm with a 10-shot or less capacity.

Still feel comfortable with a 5 or 6-shot J frame?  How about a 10-round mini-wonder-nine? You likely are going to come up quite a few rounds short.

Do you ever practice reloading a revolver or a small semi-auto while prone and fending off an advancing attacker with your offhand?  

I'd posit you will most likely be unable to reload the revolver and get it back into action in such an encounter, and probably also unlikely to get a spare magazine out and reloaded in such a situation, even though such a reload is easier than that for a revolver.

Well, you've got the rest of your life to figure it out.

Magazine capacity limits do nothing to stop a criminal, and instead hamper a law-abiding citizen's ability to effectively defend themselves.