The Beat Goes On: The economy might be tanking, but firearm sales are going great guns. Despite the weakest holiday season on record, outdoor-products retailer Cabela's turned in strong fourth-quarter sales, largely as a result of an increase in firearm and ammunition sales. Smith & Wesson is reporting pistol sales up 40%, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. reported an 81% increase in firearm revenue. In November, on the heels of Barack Obama's election, background checks for firearm sales jumped 42% to a record 1.5 million. But that pace has not abated, with a 24% rise in background checks in December, a 28% uptick in January and a 23% increase in February. A new Democratic administration typically heralds a rash of gun purchases, as consumers fear the possibility of more restrictions on firearm purchases - the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 accompanied an 18-month surge in firearm sales. But industry experts say the tough economy, along with a desire for leisure activities close to home, will ensure strong firearm sales in the coming months, regardless of the attention the Obama administration gives to gun issues... http://adage.com/article?article_id=135092 ...The thing that made this past weekend unique was when mi amigo's esposa went out Wednesday evening to get ammo for their son's gun at a huge outdoor store in Fort Lauderdale and found the shelves more empty than an O'Reilly book signing at a NOW luncheon. No cartridges, folks! This was weird because Fort Lauderdale ain't exactly Texas. Wondering what the heck was going on, they proceeded over to the gun counter to ask the clerk what the dillio was, and lo and behold the gun racks were nekked! Freak out number two... I guess the election of the socialist Obama and his anti-gun, anti-self defense cabal was all the stimulus package traditional Americans needed to appreciate time-honored American privileges - in particular the right to keep and bear arms. http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/03/08/gun_and_ammo_sales_are_shooting_through_the_roof_i_wonder_why?page=full Seventy-five percent (75%) of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 14% say gun ownership is not a constitutional right. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. Of those with a gun-owner in the household, 89% say the Constitution guarantees a citizen's right to own a gun. Sixty-four percent (64%) of those without a gun owner in the home agree. A whopping 92% of Republicans say the Constitution guarantees their right to own a gun, compared to 64% of Democrats and 71% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/75_believe_constitution_guarantees_right_to_own_a_gun --- Reid Casts Himself as Defender of RKBA: The 2010 campaign season will be in full bloom much too soon. TV ads for Nevada's next Senate race began in January in Reno. Those attack ads were from the Republican Senatorial Committee aimed at their No.1 target - Sen. Harry Reid... Sen. Reid tossed a big wrench in the machine when he said last week he would oppose any renewal of the poorly named and poorly designed Assault Weapon Ban. This should not surprise Nevada gun owners who have followed Reid's record supporting our Second Amendment rights. Reid consistently voted no on that gun ban, no in 1994, no in 2004, and now no again following Attorney General Eric Holder's statement that renewing the ban was a promise of the Obama campaign... (That's interesting because GOA rates Reid with an "F." [http://gunowners.org/111thsrat.htm]) http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090308/NEWS/903089991/1029/NONE&parentprofile=1061&title=Sen.%20Reid%20works%20to%20protect%20our%20gun%20rights Related Commentary: I fear there are a large number of gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment (2A) who believe there still remains in the Congress some support (fear of not being reelected if they vote for gun control) for 2A. They are also of the belief, especially among the National Rifle Association (NRA) crowd, that the recent Heller decision was a major victory for gun owners. Both beliefs are highly suspect... http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy51.html --- Oath Keepers: Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... and meant it... 1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order. Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal... http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html --- Race and Guns, Ongoing Commentary: ...I want to tell you about another effort to help open eyes on this subject. A politically incorrect effort. An in-your-face effort. And I support it. Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, has been at the leading edge of creative gun rights advocacy since he first became prominent in the movement in the mid-Eighties. He's working on a new project that takes the gloves off... http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d7-No-Guns-for-Negroes --- Missouri May Lower CCW Age: Missouri lawmakers have proposed lowering the nation's oldest minimum age requirement for carrying concealed weapons so that those allowed to drink alcohol can carry a gun. Currently, applicants must be at least 23 years old, live in the state, have no felony convictions and pass a firearms training course and background check to qualify for a Missouri concealed weapon permit. Now, many of the people who pushed the state to set up that system for allowing concealed weapons want the minimum age lowered. Of the 48 states that allow concealed weapon permits - only Illinois and Wisconsin do not - about three-quarters require applicants to be 21 years old, according to Handgunlaw.us, a Web site operated by gun rights supporters to track state firearms laws. Other states allow permits even younger, at age 18... (My recollection is that some Alabama sheriffs have also set the minimum age for a permit at 23. Last I knew, many Missouri residents opted to carry on out-of-state permits. I will await responses on whether a Missouri resident under the age of 23 can currently carry on an out-of-state permit.) http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/679764.html --- Illinois Gun Owners to Rally: An estimated 2,000 law-abiding firearm owners are expected to meet Wednesday at the State Capitol to protest gun control measures pending before the Illinois General Assembly. The event, expected to be the largest gun-rights rally held in the Midwest, will begin with a 10:00 AM capitol press conference. The press conference will feature legislators, industry representatives, and ISRA officials who will discuss efforts to derail gun control legislation currently before the legislature. During the press conference, Rep. Brandon Phelps will be recognized as the ISRA Legislator of the Year... http://www.centredaily.com/pr_news_wire/story/1159225.html --- A Plea for Campus Carry in Rhode Island: Campus security may very well experience a revolution at some of our neighboring institutions. I'm told that Rhode Island's three public colleges - the University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island College and the Community College of Rhode Island - have considered arming campus police officers, a policy which Brown has practiced with campus police since January 2006... I have no doubt that the powers that be will approve of this most noble cause, and that URI and the other state schools will make the same decision that Brown made three years ago. That is why, in order to keep ourselves ahead of the pack, I suggest that Brown set a new trend. It is time for the University to start arming its students... http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2009/03/09/Columns/Michael.Fizpatrick.12.Fight.Fire.With.Firearms-3664727.shtml --- Phoenix Dealer Goes on Trial for Gunrunning: Law-enforcement agents on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border will be watching closely today as a Valley businessman accused of supplying assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels goes on trial. The case has drawn international attention as a landmark effort against gunrunning and because of the cooperative work between Mexican and U.S. authorities. Mexican prosecutors sat in on suspect interviews and provided investigative materials for the case. Court papers claim dealers in Arizona and other states bordering Mexico provide three- quarters of the black-market firearms to Mexico, a nation that strictly controls gun ownership. Phoenix is considered a hub for illegal exportation of AK-47s, SKS rifles, .50-caliber rifles and other weapons favored by narcotics gangsters... (No explanation is offered as to where the Mexican gangs get their full-auto weapons, mortars and grenades, none of which are readily avaialble in border-state gun shops.) http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/09/20090309guns0309.html --- A Vocabulary Review: ...Let's review some basic terms: A "semi-automatic firearm" fires one round with every pull of the trigger, just like a revolver. A "machine gun" fires "automatically" two or more rounds with one pull of the trigger. An "assault rifle" is a military term for a rifle which can be fired semi-automatically or as a machine gun, automatically, by way of a switch to select the mode of fire. But an "assault weapon" is just an Orwellian term coined by anti-gun politicians for "scary looking rifles" which are not machine guns - just dressed up cosmetically to look like military assault rifles with pistol grips, flash suppressors, and perhaps a bayonet mounting lug... (Embedded video shows a "hardened" M60 firing an 850-round burst in 1 minute, 45 seconds.) http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d7-Wall-Street-Journal-lapses-into-newspeak-when-it-comes-to-guns --- Myths of the Gun, Part 1: ...Case in point, I will bet good money that you have heard the advice "If you shoot an intruder on the porch, the first thing you do is drag him inside". I have yet to meet someone who hasn't heard this gem from an uncle, grandfather or cousin twice-removed. The person giving the advice often seeks to imbue it with authority by swearing that it was a police officer, judge or attorney who shared this sage wisdom with them... http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d7-The-first-thing-you-do-is-drag-him-inside --- Oops, Wrong House: A Shawnee man was shot and killed by a homeowner late Wednesday night at a rural home on Old Highway 270 near Shawnee. The Pottawatomie County Sheriff's Office is investigating the case as a homicide, but no arrests have been made. It will be up to the district attorney's office to review the case and determine if charges are warranted or if the shooting falls under Oklahoma's "Make My Day" law... The shooting remains under investigation, but Booth said it appears Poncho went to the residence and knocked on the front door. When the homeowner answered, Poncho reportedly stepped inside the home, Booth said, and there was a slight altercation between the two men, who reportedly knew each other. "The homeowner had a pistol with him," Booth said, "and shot Mr. Poncho one time in the chest." ...A woman who was traveling in a car with Poncho made allegations about being kidnapped, Booth said, so that information became part of the shooting investigation... http://www.news-star.com/news/x844658764/Man-shot-killed-by-homeowner --- Tangentially Related: Last week, HUMAN EVENTS reported that eleven states, Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, had all "all introduced bills and resolutions" declaring their sovereignty over Obama's actions in light of the 10th Amendment... This week, HUMAN EVENTS is happy to report that five more states have decided to invoke the 10th as well. These five - Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia - have all begun their action under the 10th Amendment in a bid to protect themselves from what they view as nothing less than an unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the Obama administration... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30917&s=rcmp Four rare California condors hatched and raised in captivity have been released along the Arizona-Utah border. The release on Saturday at the Vermillion Cliffs National Monument was part of an effort by the private non-profit Peregrine Fund to re-establish condor populations. Each condor is fitted with a transmitter so it can be tracked by biologists. (It's unclear whether they will be dropping flyers urging the ban of lead bullets.) http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/03/09/20090309B1-update-short0309.html --- From Force Science Research Center: I. New study: When civilians would shoot...and when they think you should Fascinating experiments by 2 California researchers show that young civilians who might someday be on an OIS jury overwhelmingly disagree with veteran officers about when police are justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators. Interestingly, tests also reveal that when facing shoot/don't shoot decisions of their own, civilians tend to be quick on the trigger--and often wrong in their perceptions. Even in ideal lighting conditions, civilian test subjects show "a very low capacity for distinguishing" a handgun from an innocuous object, such as a power tool. Forced to make a time-pressured decision, the vast majority would shoot a "suspect" who is, in fact, unarmed. "On one hand," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, "this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions. "But on the other hand, the study shows the woeful lack of understanding most non-cops have about the larger legality and appropriateness of using deadly force. And this can result in serious ramifications in the courtroom." The findings, by Dr. Matthew Sharps, an expert on eye-witness identification and a psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, and Adam Hess, a lecturer in criminology at the school, are reported in The Forensic Examiner [12/22/08], published by the American College of Forensic Examiners. Their paper, "To shoot or not to shoot: Response and interpretation of response to armed assailants," can be read in full by clicking here. In their experiments, Sharps and Hess report, they first addressed "how untrained people would react if placed in the position of police officers confronting a situation potentially involving firearms and firearm violence." Eighty-seven female and 38 male college student volunteers of various races were each shown 1 of 4 high-quality digital photos of simulated "crime scenes." The settings were stage-set with the guidance of veteran FTOs from the Fresno PD, "all highly experienced in tactical realities and the sorts of situations encountered by witnesses and officers on the street." Three photos showed a lone M/W subject, holding a Beretta 9mm pistol in profile: one depicted a "simple" scene, "sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects"; another a "complex" scene, "including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items"; the third a complex scene that included several bystanders and a young, female "victim" being threatened by the armed perpetrator pointing the gun at her in a 1-handed grip. In a fourth photo, the scene was the same as the third--except that the Beretta was replaced with a power screwdriver. Before any pictures were shown, each volunteer was told that a scene "which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger" would be flashed for 2 seconds or less on a movie screen. "You may intervene" by shooting at the perpetrator "to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon," the researchers explained. Participants could "shoot" either by pressing a button or by firing a suction-tipped dart from a toy gun. "The conditions for all 4 scenes involved uniformly excellent lighting (strong sunlight), and the relative comfort of witnesses being seated," Sharps and Hess write. "There was no movement or occlusion of important elements of the scenes, and of course there was no personal danger for the respondents in the experiment." The smallest number of individuals decided to shoot at the lone subject holding a gun in the simple environment with no victim. Yet "even under these circumstances, in which no crime was depicted," a strong majority--64%--decided to fire. This despite the fact that the "perpetrator" as depicted could have as easily been target-shooting as committing a crime, the researchers note. In the complex but victimless scene, 67% chose to shoot. When a victim and bystanders were added, the proportion of shooters rose significantly, to 88%--nearly 9 out of 10. But most revealingly, when the suspect pointed a power screwdriver instead of a gun, some 85% "shot" him. "In other words," Sharps and Hess write, "respondents were equally likely to shoot the perpetrator whether he was armed or unarmed, as long as there was a potential 'victim' in the scene. It made no [statistically significant] difference whether the perpetrator held a gun or a power tool." Across the range of scenes, "when untrained people...'confronted' a suspect, the majority decided to shoot him under all conditions....[The] very high number of those who decided to shoot the unarmed suspect under ideal conditions might be inflated even further under the rapidly changing and visually confusing circumstances of a typical police emergency." The challenge the volunteers faced in distinguishing between the gun and the power tool was relatively easy, compared to officers making split-second decisions in the field. Cops frequently have to employ "rapid cognitive processing" in darkness or semidarkness, often deciding in less than a second whether to shoot, the researchers observe. "During that time, many factors in a scene must be evaluated: the suspect's motions; where the weapon is aimed; the presence of other people, including other potential suspects, and whether they are in the officer's probable field of fire; other potential sources of hazard, to self, to others, and to the suspect, in the immediate environment.... "In view of these extensive processing demands, errors in perception or cognitive processing are likely to be relatively frequent.... "[E]xtraordinary demands are placed on the cognitive and perceptual abilities of police officers in cases of gun violence. Public perception of these incidents, however, typically does not center on the cognitive or perceptual issues involved." Instead, officers' errors in shooting suspects brandishing innocuous objects rather than guns are "attributed, in many sources, to racism...and failures of integrity." It seems "incomprehensible, to many people, that officers could possibly mistake a [non-weapon] for a real firearm in the dark." Among several instances the researchers cite in which officers have been pilloried by the press and public for mistaken perceptions is the infamous case of Amadou Diallo, who was shot and killed by NYPD personnel in 1999 when he abruptly pulled a black wallet from his pocket during a confrontation. More recently, a subject was shot dead in Tacoma, WA, when he pointed a small, black cordless drill directly at officers. "It should be noted that the situation in which most people [in the experiment] effectively decided to kill an unarmed suspect was similar to the circumstances surrounding" these 2 cases, the researchers state. The intensely negative reactions of civilians toward officers involved in such incidents may, in reality, "have more to do with highly unrealistic public and mass-media expectations, and with popular ideas about deadly force, than with putative racism or integrity issues on the part of police," Sharps and Hess suggest. A disturbing insight into the public mind-set regarding police use of deadly force surfaced through a companion experiment conducted by the research team. Again using digital photography projected onto a screen, 33 females and 11 males recruited from freshman psychology classes were asked to view scenes in which a male or female Caucasian perpetrator, positioned "among typical street clutter," pointed a pistol in a 1-handed grip at a young, female "victim." After viewing the scene for a full 5 seconds ("far more than ample observation and processing time"), each subject was asked "what a police officer should do on encountering the situation depicted"...and why. Previously, 3 senior FTOs and a senior police commander had evaluated the proper police response. All concluded that "there was no question that this situation absolutely required a shooting response for both the male and female perpetrator.... [A]ny police officer encountering this situation must fire [immediately] on the perpetrator...in order to prevent the probable imminent death of the victim." To the researchers' surprise, the civilian volunteers overwhelmingly rated this a no-shoot situation. Only 11.36%--roughly 1 out of 10--"felt that a shooting response was called for," the researchers report. "[A]pproximately 9 out of 10...were of the opinion that an officer should not fire...although all of the senior police officers consulted stated that the situation depicted absolutely required a shooting response. "This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting....In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances." Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, "no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator," and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman. The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn't really fire because of "the daylight, public conditions of the situation." Others "concocted elaborate rules of engagement" under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to "convince" the suspect to drop the gun. Still others "literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire...because the suspect 'did not look like she wanted to kill.' Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator's leg or arm, because...'a shot to the leg is relatively harmless....' " The researchers speculate that "many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public...and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system...." They conclude: "[I]f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected....This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system.... "[I]t is clear that these [findings] assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances under which actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions of law enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime." "Although this research is a welcome first step in helping to bridge the gap of understanding between many civilians and law enforcement, it's important to remember that the exploration doesn't stop here," says Dr. Lewinski. "Force Science Research Center Advisor Tom Aveni's work on contextual cues makes clear that in order to facilitate a more thorough understanding of these issues, this study should expand beyond static settings and expand into fluid and dynamic scenarios that better reflect issues of threat recognition and response in regard to human movement. Although we're supportive of and grateful for the work that's been done to date, we're hopeful that the focus will move in this direction." ================ (c) 2009: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail: info@forcesciencenews.com. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota State University, Mankato. ================ -- Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .