GUN SAFETY IN THE HOME – THE FIRST PRIORITY!
An ever increasing number of people are purchasing firearms for home protection today. Many of these people are first time firearms owners who have decided for various reasons to add a layer of protection for their families. This means that many homes with firearms will also have children present and while good firearms safety storage measures are important to block access to all unauthorized persons, its especially important to consider how to safeguard your children as well as to introduce them to any firearms you have in your home. Read more
NJ2AS Presents Internationally Known Firearms Training Consultant Rob Pincus
New Jersey Second Amendment Society:
Meet and speak with Rob Pincus Wednesday Evening August 17, 2011 at 7:30PM At American Legion Post 129 on 2025 Church Road In Toms River, New Jersey
Don’t miss this opportunity to see Rob and hear his perspective on the right to keep and bear arms. Come and see him demonstrate some of the same techniques he has used to teach such groups as the Chicago Police Department FTU, South Wales Police Department Training Unit (UK), NSW SEAL Qualification Training, Bavarian Polizie (DE), Orange County (FL) Sheriff’s Office and 19th Group Army Special Forces.
Rob Pincus is a professional trainer, author and consultant. He and his staff at I.C.E. Training Company provide services to military, law en-forcement, private security and students interested in self-defense. Rob is also associated with SWAT Magazine TV, and is the Co Host of “The Best Defense” on the Outdoor Channel.
All are invited to attend this FREE event Donations are welcomed.
About:
New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: www.nj2as.com
F.A.T.S – FireArms Training Simulator
I recently had the opportunity to try out the F.A.T.S training system after taking a level two Urban Pistol class at the Police Academy range. The class was fantastic but after it was over, I peeked in the room where the F.A.T.S training sessions were being conducted. F.A.T.S stands for FireArms Training Simulator. It is an entirely interactive system that uses a computer program, a large screen and very realistic firearms that are loaded with computer chips instead of ammunition. It looks somewhat like a big video game, but it is definitely not a game.
The F.A.T.S system is used in police and military training. It costs upwards of $150,000 and was designed to be used with many types of firearms – however, each type of firearm added to the system costs several thousand dollars. The software on this F.A.T.S system was designed to simulate police calls and stops and the firearms were all corded (i.e. attached) to the computer. There are systems where the firearms are not corded, and the guns have magazines filled with nitrogen gas to simulate recoil. With certain software, it is also possible to create scenarios where the suspects will not only be shooting back at you from the video screen, but the instructor can launch soft foam projectiles at you from a device called the Hostile Fire Simulator. In this case you would need to make use of available cover in the room to avoid being hit. Read more
Sour Grapes from AP on Obama’s Gun Policy?
This week the Associated Press, via ABC News, offered a story titled “PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama yet to Act on Gun Safety.” This highly biased piece suggested President Obama was completely lax on gun laws.
The article even offered commentary from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, thus implying that Obama has done nothing anti-gun. Of course the facts aren’t so cut and dry.
The article failed to note anything about the ATF debacle known as Fast and Furious, nor did it bother to note that Obama himself reportedly said to Sarah Brady, one of the Brady Campaign founders, that gun control is on the agenda, but just “under the radar.”
This shameful article implies that Obama is soft on guns. It doesn’t note the blocked importation of M1 rifles from South Korea, nor does it note that the EPA had listened to a proposal that would ban lead ammunition. And finally it failed to note that Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices who are each extremely anti-Second Amendment.
Obama is extremely dangerous to our Second Amendment rights, whether AP wants to believe so or not.
Patch.com Sums Up Problem With America
In an opinion piece for Patch.com, titled “Kids and Toy Guns,” asked the question “Are water guns and foam dart guns OK toys for our kids?” The writer Ann Rubin responded to a question from a friend, writing:
“Recently, my friend Jennifer wrote me and said, ‘So, one thing I struggle with raising [two] boys is the fascination with guns, blasters, bombs, and other instruments of destruction. I am trying to raise children who want to save the planet, and they seem much more interested in blowing it up. Finding the right balance is a tricky one for me. Would love to see your thoughts and insights.’”
Can’t children just be children? Isn’t fighting make believe monsters or fending off an alien invasion the way that children try to “save the planet.” Yes, children are exposed to a lot of violence, but the truth is that the world is a dangerous and scary place.
There are revolutions in countries across the globe, uprisings, terrorist attacks and we have soldier on the ground in combat zones right now. We need to be realistic and understand that these problems won’t be solved by the time today’s children are adults.
No one wants to see their children grow up and go off to war, but we have to accept that we can’t bury our head in the sand, nor can we bury our children’s head in the sand either. We have to accept that children will see war and violence as exciting and it will become part of their playtime.
Firing Back: Left Leaning Bloggers Show Bias Against NRA
The blogisphere – at least in the technology and celebrity world – is made up of would-be journalists (and we do mean would-be) living in narrow minded enclaves of New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles. These people work – if you can call it that – strange hours, live like the hipsters they mock and think they know America better than the land they only fly over.
They mock what they don’t understand or worse just dislike. Because they live in traditionally anti-gun cities, they think it is proper and correct to be anti-gun. So it is no surprise that there has been a blogisphere backlash against the NRA’s efforts to keep pediatricians from asking about guns.
Media watch site Gawker offered a snide take on the issue:
“Is your pediatrician trying to take away your gun? (Probably!) You should move to Florida, where a new law would prevent pediatricians from asking about guns in the home. Thanks, NRA, for telling doctors what they can, and can’t, do.”
“An NRA-lobbied bill in Florida will prohibit doctors, especially pediatricians, from asking patients about their gun-safety. The bill is expected to be signed by Governor Rick Scott. Pediatricians routinely advise parents about seatbelts, bike helmets, etc, but this law will make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety unless ‘it’s directly relevant to the patient’s care or the safety of others.’ Comparable legislation is under discussion in North Carolina and Alabama.”
What BoingBoing misses the point on is that many communities have laws requiring children under a certain age to wear bike helmets or sit in child seats, while seatbelts are required by law virtually everywhere!
As we previously asked, where is the line drawn? Why is the issue of guns allowed to be brought up? What is next, how many knives are in the kitchen, whether a family has a wood shop because tools can be dangerous? Perhaps commonsense questions such as “are all potentially dangerous objects locked away,” would suffice? Why is it such a proper that guns are not addressed specifically?
It also brings up another facet of this… would parents be held liable if they lied about the guns even if something tragic never occurs? There is doctor/patient confidentiality but why do doctors have to right to know if patients have firearms? And if doctors are allowed, should your tax preparer know as well?
NPR Shows Bias in Report on Florida Gun Bill
There is a showdown happening in Florida between gun owners and doctors, and NPR seems to be making too much of it, offering a not so subtle headline “Florida Bill Could Muzzle Doctors On Gun Safety.”
The article even has the sub-headline “An Invasion of Privacy,” followed by a slanted quote from Dr. Louis St. Petery:
“If you have a pool, let’s talk about pool safety so we don’t have accidental drowning. And if you have firearms, let’s talk about gun safety so that they’re stored properly — you know, the gun needs to be locked up, the ammunition stored separate from the gun, etc., so that children don’t have access to them.”
But do doctors ask if their patients have pools? Do doctors, or should doctors, note if the family restores automobiles or has a wood shop in the garage? Both of those could put children in danger from tools; what about whether the neighbor has large dogs? The issue is where does this stop and why should firearms be singled out by doctors?
However, this issue of “scenarios” continues as Dr. Paul Robinson, a specialist in adolescent medicine, is also quoted:
“What if I have an adolescent who’s been bullied, who’s not suicidal? I don’t think, under the current bill, I’m entitled to ask him if there’s a gun in the home, or if he’s carried a gun to school, or if he’s thinking of harming someone else with a gun.”
The next question we ask is what should – or could – a doctor do with this information? Could the doctor inform the police that a depressed and bullied teen lives in a house with guns? Could the doctor order the guns removed? Maybe the doctor instead could use commonsense and talk to the parents, offering warning signs. What if there is a teen who is bullied and just takes the kitchen knife to school? Is that even considered? Or picks up a rock or brings a bat to school? Again, where does this stop and why is it just about “guns?”
Women Empowering Themselves With Firearms
According to statistics provided by the National Sports Foundation, 2009 saw a 73% increase in the number of firearms sold to women. And these ladies aren’t buying for their boyfriends. There has also been an increase in the number of women enrolled in training classes. Organizations like Women of Caliber, which advertises itself as “the best firearms training for women – by women”, is seeing an increase of estrogen packin’ mama bears who don’t want you getting between them and their cubs. And guys, if you think these are the slim, big breasted vixens from video games, forget it. They are more likely to be the grandma next door.
So exploiters of women, whether you be rapist, thief or physical abuser, your next victim is likely to do a double-tap into your chest rather than comply with your criminal desires.
Mr. President My Gun Policy Proposal
As we learned this week, the President is having talks with both sides of the gun control issue. Somehow my invitation got lost in the mail so I’ll use the pages of FirearmsTruth to present my proposal. [Note: I’m still available if I can get a seat on Air Force Two and room and board at the White House. Vice President Biden needs someone to hang out with him while the President is on vacation. I hear Joe really wants to play Axis & Allies in the War Room].
If firearms safety is something the administration wants to ensure for Americans, I suggest that the Federal Government fund shooting clubs around the country. Instructors, firearms and shooting ranges would be made available to anyone who doesn’t have a felony conviction and is age appropriate. Read more
New York Times: Regulate Guns Like Toys
This week The New York Times offered an op-ed piece that suggested that guns should be regulated like toys. Seriously? We don’t recall there being a 1934 Federal Toy Act, or the Toy Control Act of 1968, and yet Nicholas D. Kristof suggests:
“To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?”
Kristof offers some ways that this can be done, and we’ll respond one at a time:
“Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers.”
How does one per month really matter? The truth is that very few people buy more than one gun a month anyway. And there are those times when stores run specials, offer deals, etc. There are also times when someone might sell a collection or when a relative has passed away. Does this mean that as a collector I couldn’t buy my friends collection of antique pistols because of some waiting period?
“Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase.”
OK, good advice. Tell the criminals they need gun safes. Likewise, stolen and black market gun owners don’t care about serial numbers.
“Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as ‘smart guns,’ which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan.”
The magazine wasn’t 33-bullets. Maybe reporters should do better fact checking. Likewise, what if the shooter decided that one gun wasn’t enough. What if he brought several guns instead? We can play that silly game all day.
As for the smart guns, that doesn’t do anything to the millions of guns in private hands – unless of course someone suggests those be turned in and destroyed? Likewise, who is going to pay for this “investment” in new technologies? Consumers don’t want it, and therefore the makers won’t pay for it.
The waiting period sounds good, but criminals don’t wait. And in the case of the shooter in Tucson, he bought the gun months ago anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
In other words, there is safety in guns. The problem is calling on these measures only hurts the law abiding, not the criminal.
