“Indeed, another question included in Gallup’s poll demonstrates robust support for gun violence prevention legislation. 77 percent of respondents feel that the laws covering the sales of firearms should either be stricter or kept as they are now, with only 11 percent calling for them to be weakened. In other words, the vast majority of Americans support reasonable gun control measures; only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.”

That isn’t exactly what the poll suggests that “only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.” Even Gallup noted:

“In 1991, 68% of Americans favored stricter gun laws and 43% favored a ban on handguns. Those percentages are 43% and 26%, respectively, today.”

But again here is where the media – or in this case a “media watchdog” – doesn’t like the findings and will put its own spin on it.

And apparently some of the readers feel the same way. Here is a sampling of some responses:

o I know I am being “elitist,” but I want an IQ test or something comparable as a requirement for gun ownership.
o I would also support a move to adopt a policy, like many European countries, that forbids the unregulated private ownership of firearms or ammunition used by military forces. Eliminating semiautomatic firearms with multiple, high capacity, removable, clips wouldn’t stop psychopaths from gunning down innocent victims but it would limit the amount of carnage one person could inflict.

Just a quick response to the second point… this came from a self-confessed “hunter.” We’d love to know what rifles he must hunt with, or where he gets his information. European countries don’t exactly ban “ammunition used by military forces,” and don’t know what that means. There isn’t exactly an “army caliber” – and many of the rounds used in military firearms are used in some civilian firearms.

And of course both comments are from “elitists,” but it is the latter one that bothers us. Here is someone who wants the rules modified to suit him. He claims to be a hunter and therefore has no problem with guns, as long as he can use them as he wants. Typical liberals who see it only their way!

Cam Edwards talks to Pennsylvania State Rep. John Evans

“Brown said it’s good to get the guns off the streets, wherever they came from. The mayor said that guns can easily get into the hands of children, or they can be stolen in burglaries.”

Yet another mayor who wants to disarms the populace and pay “between $10 and $100 for their weapons.” Why exactly does the mayor think it is “easy” for guns to be stolen anyway? Clearly this mayor doesn’t believe guns could actually offer protection to home owners. And the point that the guns are off the streets, “wherever they came from,” just seems to imply that this mayor thinks that all guns eventually end up on the streets, which is utter nonsense.

Finally, the AP should get their facts straight, as they noted one firearm in particular:

“…a 12-guage ‘street sweeper’ assault rifle.”

What are they talking about? It sounds good, or rather it sounds ominous. But a 12-guage would be a shotgun, and not really that uncommon of a shotgun for hunting. But by no means is it an assault rifle.

This makes us question the validity of this entire piece.

We’ll be looking at the newest and most innovative products that will be available this year for hunters, sport shooters and firearms enthusiasts. Last year’s show in Orlando saw nearly 60,000 in total attendance with more than 1,600 exhibitors and nearly 700,000 square feet of exhibit space – and this year the National Shooting Sports Foundation expects an even bigger show with nearly 2,000 members of the media in attendance.

SHOT Show Official Website

Check back all week for the latest news from Las Vegas.

The collection will go on display at the Shelburne Museum next spring. The news site noted:

“The 106-gun collection, amassed by Terry Tyler, consists of firearms manufactured in the state in the 18th and 19th centuries. Among them: Hunting rifles, pistols and military guns from the Mexican-American and Civil Wars, some with stocks made of tiger maple, burled walnut and other decorative woods. The exhibit, ‘Lock, Stock and Barrel: The Terry Tyler Collection of Vermont Firearms,’ opens May 15 at the museum.”

Finally, praising of the history of guns in the media.

The first twist here is that the student is 16-year old female honor student Demarie DeReu, a member of student council and varsity cheerleader. Usually these stories involve boys, not girls so obviously this story will likely draw additional media attention given the student’s gender.

The other twist is that DeReu actually turned herself in. DeReu, according to the report from KXLH, reported that the gun was in the truck to school officials. She did so after learning that a contraband dog would be in the parking lot, and this supposedly made her remember the gun.

Did she make a mistake? Absolutely, but should she face expulsion. No, especially since she actually reported the gun to school officials. We realize that many schools have enacted a “zero tolerance” policy in the wake of school shootings, but this is policy often makes zero sense.

The genre took off, with numerous follow-ups and many notable brands – such as Cabellas – joined in. Hunting season was open and it wasn’t just limited to deer season. But then like every other oversaturated gaming genre, the hunting games faded away.

The truth is that first person shooters really became far engrossing, and instead of just science fiction type games and their ilk, there was a wave of World War II, and now modern day military simulations. No doubt these took away from the audience. But the hunting games weren’t driven into extinction.

Now the games are making a comeback, but the question is whether these are actually good for gun owners and hunters. The games themselves are actually quite fun, but the problem is that just as many in the mainstream media like to point the finger at guns anytime something bad happens, there are those that point the finger at video games.

As a reporter who has covered the game industry and the firearms industry, these games are worth noting because as with many military games, the equipment – including the firearms – is quite accurate and realistic. This puts the games in the sights of anyone who believes that this form of entertainment is responsible for school shooters or anti-social behavior.

With new releases such as the Remington Super Slam Hunting series, which is being released for the Nintendo Wii, PC and iPhone, the question is whether this could be seen as perfect storm for those who blame games and guns. I like to think otherwise of course.

The game does feature numerous Remington rifles, including:

• Model 750 Rifle
• Model 7600 Rifle
• Model R-25 Rifle
• Model Seven CDL Rifle
• Model 1100 Sporting 12 Gauge Shotgun
• 887 Nitro Mag

But this is no different from a shooter that features AK-47s, M-4s or even SVD sniper rifles. At the annual Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) back in 1999, which was held only weeks after the shooting at Columbine, Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) made a bold statement during his keynote address. He held up a gaming controller and essentially said that you could no more learn to become a killer with it than you could learn to drive in a Grand Prix race. That remains true today.

The graphics have improved, the gameplay has gotten better and there is far more detail. But the truth is that games remain games. Games are not reality.

The only concern is that games do not teach respect of real firearms. While many gamers probably wouldn’t know how to even load many of the guns they wield virtually, there seems to be a disconnect at times when it comes to understanding the potential dangers of a real firearm.

Thus it is a two way street. Games will not turn gamers into killers, but games shouldn’t be used to teach gun safety. That’s something to remember.

It’s a sad story. The business owner is 67 years old and now faces a serious felony charge. In Texas, and most jurisdictions if not all, deadly force can’t be used unless one fears for his life or the life of another, or fears great bodily harm. A verbal altercation doesn’t reach these thresholds.

I suppose this is some sort of antidotal evidence Kamprath is using to strengthen his argument that all firearms purchases should require proof of passing a lengthy safety course. Unfortunately for Kamprath his argument is full of holes, even though in his bio he claims he enjoys debate.

For starters, Kamprath argues that the state has a duty to protect the public from “hazardous products, materials and substances. At a minimum, we put warning labels on dangerous items to warn and protect the public.”

Not quite. Almost any material or substance can be a danger to a member of the public. Water is a good example. How many people drown ever year in this country? We don’t have lifeguards at every place it is possible to go swimming. Does the state of Texas have a warning label for the Gulf of Mexico? And as far as warning labels are concerned, most are written by company lawyers to avoid lawsuits. In other words they are written to protect companies, not the public. If you have ever bought a lawnmower you’ll find more warning labels than there are rattlesnakes in Texas.

To make the argument that even a firearm just used for home protection should require a training course, he compares this to the hunting and conceal carry laws of Texas. Hunting is well within the realm of state control. Like in Robin Hood days the beasts of the forest belong to the King. Hunting education classes teach things like outdoor survival, conservation and first aid, along with hunting safety. None of this applies to home protection.

To carry a concealed handgun legally in Texas, the state requires 10-15 hours of classroom training and proof that the candidate is proficient in the use of a pistol. This is a reasonable requirement considering that the handgun will be carried in public. But a similar requirement for home use of a firearm is unreasonable. Your home is your Castle. If you think you are more secure with a firearm near the hearth, the state shouldn’t impede you. (It is interesting to note that so-called liberals say the government should stay out of the bedroom, unless you have guns there).

And finally, Kamprath’s worst argument of them all. He says that Texas requires training and licensing to drive a car. He may have gotten the idea from President Obama who made the fallacious argument for the health care bill that in order to drive a car you have to buy insurance. Wrong. Not true. The President was either lying or isn’t as smart a lawyer as the press makes him out to be. You can drive an automobile on private property without insurance, without a license and without any formal training at all. You can set up stop signs and run through them without stopping all you want. Only on PUBLIC streets do state requirements apply. Why should owning guns that are only used on private property be any different?  Answer: They shouldn’t.

This is the sort of smoke and mirrors that these liberal politicians play. She can say she isn’t against guns, but the district she represents has very strict gun laws already! To this point, she is not one who qualified to speak out about the “open carry” gun laws in other parts of the country. But she also attempts to make her point by bring up some key facts:

“In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.”

Let’s tackle these one at a time. The man who stood outside a venue in New Hampshire, was as she says “outside.” He didn’t attempt to bring the gun inside, and who is to say whether anyone “illegally” had a concealed weapon? We just don’t know. The same goes for the situation in Phoenix. The guns were never near the POTUS, and no one was hurt. To the Amtrak trains, passengers can’t take guns to their seats, and guns must travel as “cargo.” What’s the problem? Already people could just as easily bring guns illegally as well. Same goes with the national parks, just because the law is changing doesn’t mean that people weren’t previously breaking the law.

But to the final point in her above statement: “gun violence.” Violent crime in the country is down, as ownership of firearms is up. But Rep. McCarthy lives in, and represents a district that has such strict gun laws that she probably knows (or represents) few actual gun owners. This makes her unqualified to discuss Open Carry.

“I have a 9-month-old daughter, and her dad and I have split up.  He has a .45 and he owns rifles that he uses to go hunting.  He keeps the rifles in his gun safe but has his .45 sitting in a drawer right next to the baby’s crib.”

Yes, on the surface this sounds like a bad idea. But what isn’t asked is whether the crib is next to the father’s bed as well. If that is the case it could be for a reason: Is the neighborhood safe, has the house been broken into in the past, etc.? All these are factors to why the father may want a gun at close hand, especially to protect his daughter.

The follow-up answer also has some nice bias:

“Whether this is illegal depends on two points: Is the gun licensed? Does it have a safety latch?”

If the father in question has a gun safe, goes hunting and the wife knows this is a “.45″ than we’ll have to assume the gun is legally owned and licensed. Obviously we can’t be sure, but the sound of the question implies the father knows something about guns. But this is a nice twist by the writer of the answer, throwing in a suggestion to readers that “yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and you know guns aren’t legally owned if not licensed.” Time and time again the mainstream media loves to note the legality of firearms, but this is because we believe the MSM would like all guns to be illegal… at least in the hands of private citizens.

To the next point: what is a safety latch on a gun? Does this mean a “safety?” The answer further includes a quote from Massachusetts’s law on how a gun must be properly stored, as to give ammo to the mother a way to get her ex in trouble for having such a vial item as a “gun.” It all fits together so well that it almost makes us wonder about the very question. Couldn’t be a set up, could it?