Articles by Herschel Smith

David French:

Writing in 2015, Malcolm Gladwell wrote what I think is still the best explanation for modern American mass shootings, and it’s easily the least comforting. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex argument, essentially he argues that each mass shooting lowers the threshold for the next. He argues, we are in the midst of a slow-motion “riot” of mass shootings, with the Columbine shooting in many ways the key triggering event. Relying on the work of Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter, Gladwell notes that it’s a mistake to look at each incident independently:

But Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyonearound him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

Gladwell then argues that Columbine changed the thresholds …

If this is the best French could come up with, he should have just shut up and done chores that day.  Next, to NRA president Oliver North.

“The problem that we’ve got is we’re trying like the dickens to treat the symptom without treating the disease,” Mr. North said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And the disease in this case isn’t the Second Amendment. The disease is youngsters who are steeped in a culture of violence.”

He said everything from violence on television to Ritalin, a drug used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, may be contributing to the problem.

North should have just done chores too.  Good Lord.  Ritalin.  Mr. North is a doctor now.  Did you know that one of the intended side effects of Ritalin is to slow the response time during testing, not speed it up?  To be sure, doctors probably over-prescribe Ritalin like they overprescribe many things, but Oliver North needs to go get an MD before I’ll listen to any more of his claptrap.

Hey, here’s an innovative idea.  It’s not Ritalin.  It’s not thresholds.  It’s not guns.  Shootings, whether “mass” or otherwise, are a symptom of the moral malady that afflicts our society, the sin sickness of the souls, which is the rejection of Jesus Christ as the only savior and the only Son of our Father, truly God and truly man.  Rejection of Christ means rejection of His law-word for our lives and for society.  The two propositions are corollaries of each other.

So here’s the project of the social planners: teach children that God doesn’t exist and that morality is a social construct, pile them into places with no protection, and then be surprised when they act like there is no God.

Of course, since the only remedy the social planners will countenance is more social planning, they want all of your guns – except those that belong to the social planners.

David Codrea:

Chris Murphy’s “baby steps” advocacy and Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope” enthusiasm prove the original goal of incremental to total disarmament is still being pursued.

As for shotguns, why is it no one is now accusing the Fudds or Dick’s Sporting Goods of having blood on their hands? They couldn’t throw semi-auto owners under the bus fast enough. Now, just as a matter of logical consistency, it ought to be their turn in the barrel.

[ … ]

In addition to repeating calls for all the usual prior restraints, don’t be surprised to see a new “lock up your safety” push, under the ignorant presumption that one “solution” fits all. They stand a good chance of getting away with it, too, because relatively few people have heard of or remember the Merced pitchfork murders.

Sadly, just today around these parts, a man committed murder of family members with a vehicle.  Vehicles, pitchforks, guns, hammers, whatever.  It’s the person, not the implement.

So Fudds, tell me why we shouldn’t ban wheel guns and scatter guns too?  I see no real need for upland fowl hunting.

How does it feel?

We’ve been addressing the issue of a new front in the war on guns, specifically as it relates both to gun manufacturers being squeezed by banks and shareholder actions concerning gun companies.  It’s tempting to see this as a spurious set of events.  The anti-gun lobby sees something that happens to garner attention, and decides to do it again to see if it garners the same attention or effect.

It’s not spurious.  This is all part of a coordinated strategy within the gun controller community.  The Brady Campaign lays it out for us.

As companies have taken positions on climate change, anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, family leave, and other socially responsible causes, it has helped to both place these issues in the forefront of the media and pressure other public and private industry members to adopt the same policies. In recent months, corporate attention has turned to America’s gun violence problem as a recognized public health epidemic that kills 96 Americans and injures another 200 or more each day.

[ … ]

An increasing amount of business leaders, investors, and corporate board members are not only cognizant of the toll of gun violence, but are also determined to lead by example. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Citigroup, Bank of America, Kroger’s, and L.L. Bean, among others, have announced policies that address this uniquely American problem.

Here we see corporations not as products of hard work, innovation, or even skilled workers who need to earn a living by the sweat of their brow.  Corporations are tools and agents of social change, regardless of what it does to the company itself or the value built by hard work over time.  Companies approached by the gun controllers should heed this warning.  The Brady Campaign has told you in no uncertain terms that they don’t care about the health of your company – the only value you add is your assets to be used for the purposes outlined by the controllers.

Aurora. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Pulse. Sutherland Springs. Las Vegas. Parkland. For how different these mass shootings were, they all have one thing in common: the shooters chose assault weapons. Shooters are purposefully outfitting themselves with the latest and best military-grade weapons and accessories …

Of course, this was all written prior to the recent shooting in Texas where the shooter used a shotgun and wheel gun, but that won’t change a thing concerning their strategy.  After mentioning Dick’s Sporting Goods, The Brady Campaign outlines some of their recent successes.

Walmart, another major gun retailer, ended its sale of assault rifles in mid-2015, citing low customer demand for weapons of this nature at their stores. Likewise, REI has suspended orders of certain products where the manufacturer is affiliated with a company making assault rifles.

And it’s not just retailers that are making significant changes to their policies on assault weapons. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. Bank of America announced it had engaged in “intense conversations” with gun manufacturers, and determined it would cease lending to any companies that make assault weapons for civilian purposes. Additionally, payment processing companies facilitating transactions like PayPal, Square, Stripe, and Apple Pay have all pledged to disallow their services for any firearm sales.

They also mention Blackrock, Citigroup, Fred Meyer, LL Bean, Kroger and other stores who have implemented what they call “gun reform” policies concerning who they do business with.

They go on to outline their proposals for “gun reform,” including [a] a renewed assault weapons ban, [b] an increase in the legal age for purchasing guns, [c] universal background checks, [d] “securing the supply chain,” and [e] advocating publicity for legal “reform.”

They don’t stop there.  They advocate the power of shareholder participation in corporations as well as legal pressure to force gun manufacturers and FFLs to conduct reporting on their political lobbying, their investments in so-called “smart gun technology,” and amusingly, this: “Report on their factual basis for advertisements that suggest guns are effective for personal protection compared to risks associated with gun ownership.”

If it’s easy to see the recent actions by Sturm & Ruger shareholders and Bank of America as spurious, it’s also easy to be dismissive about these efforts.  But make no mistake, these efforts are well funded, and moreover, the controllers have a nexus in the leadership of corporations.  Much of the upper level management, as well as HR and legal departments, has been steeped in collectivist ideology for their entire educational career.  Their world and life view are similar, if not the same.

It’s also easy to respond that “we can buy stock too,” as well as to claim that we or gun manufacturers can function in a bank-less society.  As to those claims, concerning buying stock too, it’s one thing to make boasts, and another to spend the money.  As to the ability to function in a bank-less society, it isn’t readily apparent what form this would take or how it would work.

If more odious gun laws are a direct frontal assault on God-given rights to firearms ownership, this whole effort is a well-coordinated, well-rehearsed, determined and organized enfilade assault.  This is a flaking maneuver, and it’s not apparent that gun owners or even gun manufacturers see this assault or are prepared to defend against it.

Sun Tzu recommended that in war, we “know our enemies.”  Listening to them when they divulge their strategy is certainly part of this.

Prior:

Remington Exits Bankruptcy

Response From Ruger CEO

Henry Repeating Arms On Dick’s Sporting Goods

Analysis Of Ruger Shareholder Vote

The Next Installment Of The War Between Amalgamated Bank And Ruger

Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures

Please, Please Buy This Gun Company

Bank Of America Simply Hasn’t Shown Enough Contrition For The Gun Controllers Yet

Mossberg And MKS Break Ties With Dick’s Sporting Goods

It’s A Multi-Front Banker War On Gun Owners

This is a new series inspired by reader Michael, updated as time permits and as assisted by readers.  I do not intend for me to do all of the work.

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
–Heinrich Himmler

“I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.”
–Gen. Wesley Clark, US Army

“Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.”
–Oliver North, President of NRA

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
–Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President, NRA

“In the aftermath of two of the country’s worst mass shootings, it’s an affront to both our safety as a nation and the common sense of its citizens that Congress would consider actually weakening our gun laws.”
–General Stanley McChrystal, author of the ROE that killed good men at Ganjgal

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”
–General Stanley McChrystal

For the record, The Captain’s Journal believes that all gun control laws are an affront to God’s created order and denial of rights endowed by our creator by virtue of being created in His image, and a violation and infringement of the constitution of the U.S. and the various states.

St. Louis American:

Sgt. Heather Taylor, a homicide detective in St. Louis and leader of the city’s police association for black officers, considers herself well-informed on crime-related issues. But she hadn’t heard about House Bill 1936 – the “guns everywhere” bill – which would allow concealed guns into places that are currently designated gun-free zones, including churches, college campuses, bars and government buildings.

“What?!” said Taylor, president of the Ethical Society of Police. “You are talking about introducing guns in places where they shouldn’t be. You will see an increase in gun violence in public places.”

Despite the renewed focus on gun laws around the country, many people have not heard about this bill. Even people who are tracking it don’t understand the extent of the legislation.

The EYE asked the bill’s sponsor state Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Nixa) to explain what changes HB 1936 would bring. He said if the bill passes “law-abiding citizens” would be able to conceal carry with or without a permit into the following 10 locations: churches, amusement parks, stadiums, hospitals, casinos, bars, child care facilities, polling locations, local government buildings and state government buildings. The law also lists private schools. These locations were previously considered gun-free zones for civilian concealed carry.

Individuals would have to have a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit in order to carry into college campuses and the Capitol, Taylor said. And colleges and other institutions don’t have a choice in the matter. The bill states that state, political subdivisions and public institutions of higher learning cannot impose any policies or contractual requirements that would prohibit employees or students from carrying concealed firearms.

“Again I want to reiterate, the locations that are private property locations would have the ability to choose whether or not to allow guns on their property,” Taylor told The St. Louis American. “If they do not want weapons in their establishment, they would simply post a sign, exactly what all other private property owners have to do under current statute.”

Is it dead?

Speaker of the House Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) has not yet put the bill on the legislative calendar. With the legislative session ending on Friday, May 18, some believe that the bill is dead. The full House would have to perfect the bill, have a third reading and then take a final vote to pass it. Then it would have to pass in the Senate, which is where similar legislation stalled last year.

“It wouldn’t have enough time to even make it through the House at this point,” said state Rep. Michael Butler (D-St. Louis). “It is important to note that the Speaker of the House has held on to the bill and not put it on the calendar since March 29.”

It’s too bad for Missouri that this won’t pass this year, and maybe not ever.  I was going to make a prediction for the sake of comparison with Sgt. Taylor’s prediction.  She said that “You will see an increase in gun violence in public places.”  She further said that “people pushing legislation to make gun laws even more lax and permissive are people who don’t have black and brown kids, relatives or family or haven’t been affected by gun violence at all.”

I was going to predict that the main increase in violence would have been innocent armed men and women (of all skin colors) shooting back at mainly black and brown kids who were trying to perpetrate violence on innocent folk.  Since statistics and data don’t lie.

The “Ethical Society of Police.”  Now isn’t that a hoot.

Reuters:

U.S. weapons manufacturer Remington Outdoor Co Inc. said on Thursday it had emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy with less debt and more stable financing that may help it ride out a slowing market for firearms.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, filed for bankruptcy protection in March, weeks after a shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida killed 17 people and triggered intensified campaigns for gun control by activists.

Under the reorganization plan, inked two days before the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, creditors including JPMorgan Chase & Co and Franklin Advisors will take ownership stakes in the company in exchange for forgiving more than $775 million of debt.

Remington also received a $193 million new lending package funded by seven banks, including Bank of America Corp.

“It is morning in Remington country,” Chief Executive Anthony Acitelli said in a statement.

Investors in Cerberus Capital Management LP, the previous owner, had urged the private equity fund to sell Remington after its Bushmaster rifle was used in a school shooting in 2012 in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in which 20 children died.

Remington has said its bankruptcy would not affect lawsuits against it, including one filed by the families of Sandy Hook victims. It is also appointing a new board of directors.

Bank of America has hinted that it may sell its participation in Remington’s exit financing package.

“These companies have a real opportunity to solidify a brand that is in sync with what customers want now and in the future,” said gun control advocate Igor Volsky. He called Parkland “a tipping point for Americans waking up and saying that guns are a real problem.”

I’m not sure if this is “morning” or sunset in Remington country.  Someone else now owns the controlling interest in Remington, apparently, and BoA is apparently looking for a buyer, while going on record saying that “guns are a real problem.”

You may be watching Remington in its death spiral.

News from Florida:

Meanwhile, the Broward Sheriff’s Office has made 47 “red flag” requests and removed guns in 22 cases, including an arsenal from a home in Deerfield Beach.

Hell, the only thing they won’t do is put themselves in danger to stop an active shooter.

David Codrea:

“If a cuss word on TV offends you more than pictures of dead children in Parkland or Newtown, then your priories are all wrong,” Davis replied to Tucker Carlson of Fox News. First, that’s a ridiculous argument that presupposes both aren’t offensive, but more illustrative of his mindset is that he presumes to impose his will over all others – a hallmark of all so-called “progressives.”

First, I’m still waiting for someone to deliver death certificates and coroner’s reports of the dead children at Newtown.  I note with some suspicion that the Connecticut Chambers and Governor passed a law right after Newtown that forever sealed those records.

Second, if you believe that the NRA had anything to do with any of the events you listed (Newtown, Parkland), you’re priorities are all wrong, and you apparently (stupidly) believe in the ubiquitous power of the legal system to dictate the behavior of humans who have volitional choice.

MarketWatch:

I’ve mentioned before—and I say this as a guy who’s pro guns and supports the Second Amendment—that demographics and changing consumer behavior are slowly nibbling away at America’s rich gun culture. I believe that we have seen the high-water mark for that culture and it is slowly receding. I emphasize slowly.

This has less to do with who’s in Congress and how much cash the National Rifle Association is stuffing in lawmaker’s pockets—and more to do with something that is harder to see: the fact that the gun base in the United States skews 1) male, 2) white, 3) rural and 4) somewhat lesser educated—all trends that run counter to an America that is 1) majority female, 2) rapidly urbanizing, 3) more educated and 4) less white (white births are now a minority of all U.S. births) than ever before. Data on these evolving trends can be found in the recent “demographics of gun ownership” study by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization based here in Washington.

Stop.  Quick question for my readers.  Do you like being “lesser educated?”  I’m wondering if the author of the article, Paul Brandus, knows how to do Monte Carlo particle transport analysis and solve differential equations.  I do.

And I’m wondering if Paul actually considers those social “science” degrees from state universities an actual education.  But that’s a discussion for another time.

As these changing demographics and consumer habits gradually erode the still-powerful gun culture, its political base is likely to erode as well. Like water running downhill, this is the natural order of things. And if you take this reality and layer it on top of another one—namely, the ongoing fiscal pressure that states and cities across the country constantly face—it suggests that guns and ammunition could be increasingly seen as an undertapped source of revenue.

There are precedents for this. Tobacco, a ubiquitous product half-a-century ago, gradually became politically easier to target and tax as demographics and changing consumption patterns gradually weakened a once all–powerful and unassailable industry.

This culminated in a massive 1998 agreement between tobacco manufacturers and 46 states, five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, in which the industry agreed to pay billions of dollars a year to those jurisdictions. Those costs were generally just passed on to the declining number of Americans who smoke, which helps explain why cigarette taxes are always going up. This revenue is addictive as nicotine to states, which need every penny they can get; Of course, all this is on top of the current federal tax of $1.00 per 20-pack of cigarettes.

This isn’t to say that the firearms industry isn’t taxed already. Of course it is. But taxes generally haven’t budged in a long time, and are narrowly applied. There’s a federal excise tax of 10% on handguns and 11% on long guns for the import and production of firearms and ammunition—but this hasn’t changed since the tax was first implemented literally a century ago, in 1919. And you may be surprised to know that only two states, per a RAND Corp. analysis, impose special taxes on guns and ammo above and beyond standard sales taxes: Pennsylvania and Tennessee. The former tacks on a $3 surcharge on firearms, while the latter has a $0.10 tax for use, possession, and sales of shotgun shells of metallic cartridges.

[ … ]

Some gun owners say such taxes are an infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. Defenders claim that like tobacco and alcohol, guns can sometimes incur broader costs upon society and therefore must be paid for through usage and consumption fees. Both points of view have merit; this often acrimonious debate will never end.

I don’t see firearms as having any cost at all on society.  I see moral maladies such as rejecting God’s law as having a huge sociological penalty, but Paul’s worldview is likely not amenable to this sort of thought.

Either way, he’s right about one thing.  The “debate” (as he calls it) is acrimonious now, and I can guarantee it will become more so should we be seen as an “untapped source of revenue.”

Prepare for that move as the next step in the multi-front war, gentlemen.  We’re taking enfilade fire.

This note was sent to me from the Ruger CEO upon sharing recent articles here at TCJ on Ruger and its future.

Mr. Smith – There will be No Changes to What Ruger Makes and Sells to Law Abiding Citizens, Despite Shareholder Proposal.

Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shareholder’s activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That’s it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our business, and frankly would rather see us out of business. As our I explained, “we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, as importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers, and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens and I want to assure our long-term shareholders and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that.”

Please see www.Ruger.com/Brand for a video that shows who we are and who we will continue to be.

Thank you for your support.
Chris Killoy
Ruger CEO

Thank you kindly for your quick response, Mr. Killoy.  I wish you and Ruger well in these perilous times.

However, this seems like “boilerplate language” to me, motherhood and apple pie, and it seems to me that the shareholders can do a great many things, including making hiring and firing decisions, changing business models and plans, and other disruptive sorts of mischief.

You seem determined and I like determination, but unless you or the Ruger family or employees own a controlling interest in Ruger, this sort of thing can indeed happen.

All I’m recommending is that y’all carefully consider my wording and act accordingly.  Controlling interest.