The Real Gun Guys

Cliff Lyon

Please contact me using the form above and let me know where to send your refund. You and your money are not welcome here.

Share/Save

Cliffy’s Lyon Again…

It seems the hoplophobic blowhard is at it again with his favorite subject, despite being called on the carpet time after time. This guy likes to yap for the same reason dogs like to bark, they like the sound of their own voice. For as highly educated and smart as this guy likes to think himself, he’s incredibly stupid.

As you know, we have been invaded by the paid gun lobby web trolls for calling Alan Korwin on the carpet for repeating AND further embellishing one of the gun lobby’s favorite lies on C-Span.

Most recently, troll Bob S has been challenging my use of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Kellerman Study which states:

In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.

Like parrots squawking in unison the gun lobby trolls insist the study is “oft-refuted” and flawed. It isn’t flawed and NOBODY has questioned it, except admitted gun freaks.

I checked LexusNexus and found nothing refuting the Kellerman Study. One can be fairly sure if an NEJM published study is challenged and fails, heads roll and careers are destroyed. Today Kellerman maintains the highest level of credentials and respect in his field.

Go and read it…or not. Apparently my wheel barrow of cash got sent to the wrong address…time to call the NRA!

*yawn*

Share/Save

Clueless Lyon Meows Again

Apparently Cliffy thought I’d forgotten about him when he posted his latest diatribe, this time trying to link (ala Michael Moore) the NRA to the KKK. If it weren’t so serious a charge, it’d be laughable. Not only is the assertion that the NRA grew out of the KKK patently absurd, it’s also extremely offensive. While I am willing to admit that a few gun owners are racist, the vast majority are not, and to paint an entire group of people or organization with such a broad brush is a bald-faced lie.

Let’s take a look at what Cliffy has to say. He starts off with a short video clip of Mike Huckabee speaking at the 137th NRA annual meetings and Exhibits in Louisville Kentucky. There is a loud noise in the background and he makes a joke that Barack “Hong Kong Phooey, #1 Super Guy!” Obama tripped over a chair and someone pointed a gun at him. Okay, not really the best joke in the world, and I’ll readily admit that Mike Huckabee is a white man, and a preacher, but to use this as evidence of racism by him and by extension, the NRA is shaky at best.

Is it possible that the attraction of NRA gatherings, which are attended almost exclusively by white men and always held south of the Mason Dixon line, is that they are really just KKK meetings by another name?

Actually yes. Thanks for asking. Despite the hysterical denials and obscure reasoning of white, male, predictably racist gun advocates. The NRA was formed almost immediately following the outlawing of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). But the NRA did not claim rights based upon the constitution, rather, they lobbied very successfully for laws that forbid blacks from owing guns.

I can’t imagine this will come as a surprise to our johnny-come-lately (as in since Heston came along), self-proclaimed, legal expert, revisionist historian friends.

Wow, where to begin?

First of all Cliffy, I can blow your premise with your first paragraph. Unless you consider Denver, CO, to be south of the Mason Dixon Line, you’re SOL. I could continue to list other places north of the Mason Dixon Line the NRA has held conventions, but you’re not worth it.

Let’s examine the evidence and see it the NRA really is the KKK reborn.

This from Wikipedia:

The first Klan was founded in 1866 by veterans of the Confederate Army. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by intimidating “carpetbaggers“, “scalawags” and freedmen. The KKK quickly adopted violent methods. The increase in murders finally resulted in a backlash among Southern elites who viewed the Klan’s excesses as an excuse for federal troops to continue occupation. The organization declined from 1868 to 1870 and was destroyed by President Ulysses S. Grant’s prosecution and enforcement under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

About the NRA:

The National Rifle Association, or NRA, is a non-profit group dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights, marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States. It was established in New York in 1871 as the American Rifle Association. The NRA sponsors firearm safety training courses, as well as marksmanship events featuring shooting skills and sports. The NRA is sometimes said to be the single most powerful non-profit organization in the United States. It bases its political activity on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and claims to be the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization in the United States. According to its website, the NRA has “more than four million members.”

and

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA’s first president.

So the Klan was formed in the south after the Civil War by Confederate Army veterans, and the NRA was formed in New York by Union veterans to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Incidentally, Ulysses S. Grant was the eighth president of the NRA, the very man who aggressively prosecuted the Klan and eventually destroyed it. Hardly a man you’d expect to be a member of a racist organization.

But wait, there’s more!

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. 

The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state’s authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives.Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions — and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.

and here:

Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 — by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an “illegal” such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we’d have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time — the Klan hadn’t been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)
Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant’s vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans “will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services.”

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant’s term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

Hmmm, what’s left…oh, this video clip from Bowling for Columbine by award winning liar Michael Moore.

Wait! I’ve already talked about that…

With all this, I’m left wondering in Cliffy is ignorant, stupid and half-witted, or just plain gullible.

You decide.

Share/Save

Clueless Lyon Jumps Off the Cliff

Cliff Lyon, see also, in his futile effort to prove Alan Korwin a liar, chooses to ignore all of the evidence his commenters have submitted to the contrary and declares Alan a fraud, proving his quest for the truth about Defensive Gun Uses as only so much mental masturbation. Not content to make personal insults and threats of physical violence against me, he has dedicated three whole posts to trying to expose Mr. Korwin and refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary. What is the saying about leading a horse to water?

An excerpt from his latest screed:

Despite claims to the contrary, Alan Korwin did make a public statement that is untrue (a lie), and given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement, has chosen to defend this untruth.

On April 9th 2008, Alan Korwin appeared on C-Span. In that speech, in reference to gun ownership in America, Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year.” His defense is a 1995 poll by Kleck.

But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number. (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms)

So Alan’s claim is not only laughable and absurd but also, demonstrably false and therefore irresponsible.

Go over there and comment if you’d like, or not. Nothing you say is going to change his mind, but there might be some fence sitters over there.

UPDATE: I just saw this response he posted in the comments. Is this guy for real?

And, as a matter of fact Glenn. I do not believe that preventing robberies, burglaries, rapes, assaults, auto theft, etc are valid reasons to use a firearm.

Why would you kill someone who is trying to steal your car or your girlfriend. Isn’t that a bit heavy-handed?

Do you seriously want a bunch of folks out there carrying guns just in case they think they see someone trying to steal something?

So theoretically, some thug could break into this guys house, assault him and proceed to rape his wife and/or daughter and he wouldn’t lift a finger to help. Some people have reached an evolutionary dead-end and are just too stupid to live. Even sheep will try to protect their young from predators. Someone who is too dim witted to protect themselves and their loved ones should do us a favor and not reproduce, further polluting the gene pool. What did Robert Heinlein say?

Oh yeah…

Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won’t even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes. — Robert A. Heinlein, Address at the U.S. Naval Academy, 5 April 1973

Perhaps the title of this post should have been, “Cowardly Lyon Jumps Off the Cliff.”

Share/Save

What Planet is this Guy From?

In the comments on his blog Cliff Lyon has this to say in response to a comment about why the commenter needs his sidearm:

I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

Do we all accept that individuals should have the right to decide when and if their life is in danger and who the danger is?

Do we want to demand the right to kill someone who is merely trying to steal our money?

Do we want to live in a world where our justification for arming everyone is based upon the assumption that one needs self-protection?

Aren’t we supposed to insist that America is a pretty safe place where the chances of dying from criminal attack are almost zero?

If the proliferation of hand-guns is a deterrent to would-be criminal, wouldn’t the banning of hand-guns reduce violent crime?

How else would he have someone decide if their life was in danger? Are we supposed to hold a committee meeting or postpone the conflict until an authority on lethal force has had a chance to review the assault? The idea is preposterous. Who else, but the person being assaulted, would know better whether their life was in danger. Can someone afford to wait until the crooks intentions are clear before defending themselves? We always hear the advice, “Give them what they want!” spouted off, but what if what they want is to kill you and rape your wife and daughter. There was a news story I read not long ago where a man did just as he had been told. He gave the crooks his money when they demanded it, and they shot him several times in the side as they turned to go. Trying to guess the intentions of a crook is the height of stupidity. Only an idiot would do so before attempting to defend themselves. And no Cliff, America is not a “safe place where the chances of dying from a criminal attack are almost zero.” Whoever told you this is lying. If a law were passed tomorrow banning all sidearms in public possession, and assuming everyone obeyed the law and turned their’s in, it would do nothing to reduce violent crime. You’re assumption is that criminals would obey the law and turn theirs in as well. As with what happened in England, nothing could be further from the truth. All it would do is embolden the criminals because they would be the only ones with guns, their victims would no longer be able to stop them. You see, you forgot criminals don’t obey the law. That’s why their called criminals.

Some peoples kids…

UPDATE: Seems like he just can’t get enough. He continues his attack, along with a picture I guess he thinks typifies the average gun owner, here. What a buffoon! I could posit that all hoplophobes such as him are girly men, like the picture below, but that wouldn’t be correct.

Share/Save

Cliff Lyon Loves Me

I think I pissed him off.

May I assume Yuri is your real name and as such, if I returned your invective, I would be calling Yuri Orlov a Jackass? …which I am not doing yet, but certainly can if you prefer to go down that road.

I’m not one for an elitist standard of decency in dealing with authoritarian tribalists with selfish, narrow, rednecked paradigms.

You know, sticks and stones…

I’m happy to go toe to toe with you if you like, as long as I don’t have to smell you. From your picture on Technorati, I’m guessing the pile of flesh you carry around is commensurate not only with the strength of your conviction, but also the myriad of odors one finds in a meat packing plant.

You may assume whatever you like, I really don’t care. Your opinion is of no consequence to me. I find it ironic when you say “You know, sticks and stones…” and then stoop to calling me a redneck and close with a fat joke. You are soooooooooo funny. You must be the funniest person you know. Tell me, when you tell jokes at parties, do people laugh and smile nervously and then sneak away when you’re not looking? What’s next, dick jokes? I do find the notion of me as as an “authoritarian” hilarious however. Seriously though, isn’t that more the province of you statists?

Aren’t name calling and personal attacks the last refuge of those without a leg to stand on?

Just asking…

Sticks and stones Cliffy…

You must know that the need to cite unscientific polls conducted by mindless, gun toting zealots to defend an absurd position (people need and guns to defend themselves in America) reflects the very desperation that position.

The claim that 400,000 people per year use a gun to save their lives, is on the order of a statistic that would have been implausible even in World War II. Thats why no one has bothered to prove the “professor” wrong.

But since you like dealing with absolutes, like when my bullet enters your brain, you are definetly (spelling! -ed) dead, lets do the same here.

Was that a threat? I guess that explains the difference between you and I. I would never, even in jest, suggest that I’d shoot you. Why are you anti-rights bigots so violent? Regardless of the reason, you seem to think that everyone has as little self control as you, as evidenced by your comments.

Let’s get one thing straight. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. You are one of those people who are so invested in their belief system, Jesus himself could come down off the cross and tell you I am right and you still wouldn’t believe him. Still, I’ll give it a shot.

The estimated US population (July 2008), according to the CIA World Fact Book is 303,824,646. 400,000 of 303,824,646 is .13%. What do you find so unbelievable about .13% of the population defending themselves with firearms?

There is a saying, “If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen!” This is why if someone defends themselves with a firearm and doesn’t file a police report, there’s no record. Obviously. This is why there’s no exact number, only an estimation. If no one is hurt, and the bad guy runs away, why is there a need to file a police report? Most people don’t.

In any case, there are at least three sites I can think of that make a habit of archiving DGU’s (the ones that make the papers). You’ve been pointed to them before, but here they are again:

Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog
The Armed Citizen
Gun Watch

You’ll probably sneer at these, but the paper of record these came out of are all listed, so someone of your great intelligence should be able to track them down to verify their authenticity if you’re so inclined.

Can you give me ANYTHING more bankable than some professor did a poll? How about a link to the poll, or the questions asked or the methodology used. How about some peer review (do you know what that is)?

I think your statement, “totally pwned in the process by people who rely on facts and statistics instead of blind emotion.” is a bit pre-mature.

IOW, saying it, doesn’t make it true. True to me is something on the order of, you know, a bullet to the brain.

There’s that shooting thing again, you really need to chill out.

If you refuse to believe you’ve been “pwned” by the good professor and other commenters on your blog, then you haven’t been reading the comments. Try reading them again, and pay attention this time.

Google is your friend, but to show my charity, here’s a short reading list for you:

• “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997
• James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, New York: Aldine, 1986
• FBI, “Crime in the United States”, 1998
• U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report, July 1985
• Dr. Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force”, Social Problems, February 1988
• Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
• “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws” by John R. Lott

One more, this from the Department of Justice. You do read your comments, right?

Read these and get back to me if you have any questions.

Share/Save

Anti-Rights Bigot Caught Lyon

Anti-rights bigot Cliff Lyon attempts to take Alan Korwin to task for his statement: “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.” The title of his post being “Gun Advocates Lie While People Die.”

To save you the trouble, here’s what he has to say:

Hi Alan,I just saw you on C-Span giving a talk on April 8th 2008.You said, “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.”

You said this after describing a situation in which a women killed her intruder.

I think this claim needs to be fully explored for veracity because if it is true, we gun control advocates will need to take pause.

If on the other hand, this statement is off by say 99.9%, then it is arguably a lie. As a non-fiction writer, your moral and ethical integrity are in question.

I’ve posted this e-mail on our blog so that you may defend your statement publicly. Please go there to respond.

Thanks
Cliff

This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.

Fortunately, because of OneUtah’s very high search engine ranking, this post will soon be returned on the first page of a search on Alan Korwin.

I hope he will address our concerns responsibly.

This is indeed the beauty of the internet Cliff, so people can not only see your pathetic attempt to smear a good man, but see him respond, and you get totally pwned in the process by people who rely on facts and statistics instead of blind emotion.

Way to go Cliff, you jackass, let us know when you want another spanking.

(h/t) Of Arms and the Law

Share/Save