Archive for the 'Guns' Category

I previously argued against John Lott’s procedure (especially when it is employed as an exclusive-use procedure) to demonstrate that gun ownership and crime are inversely proportional.  Go back and read this article again if you need.

Kurt Hofmann sent me this wonderful note in response to the article.  I have always claimed that my readers are better writers and I am (and especially so with Kurt), and so it behooves me to paste in his entire letter without further commentary from me.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that keeping and bearing arms suitable for self-defense is a bona fide individual right. If so, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder others with firearms, while one man alone uses a firearm to save a life, provides no basis for curbing the individual liberty to own and bear arms. Each individual must, because of his inherent, autonomous ethical freedom, be respected as an end in himself; no prior restraint may be imposed upon his right to own and bear firearms.

 

Actually we can go further. Under an individual right view, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder innocents with firearms, and no one uses a firearm to protect himself or others provides no basis for a prior restraint. Individuals must still be possessed of a right to own firearms because their ethical freedom contains the potentiality of using firearms for good. That is, people can use this tool for good, if they turn to it with a good will. 

David Codrea:

Thousands of gun owners, many lawfully armed, rallied at the State Capitol in Hartford on Saturday to protest gun laws enacted in Connecticut. Organized by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, the rally served to introduce activists to legal measures being taken in the courts to repeal those edicts, to promote support for politicians pledging to support the right to keep and bear arms, and to give fed up gun owners a public forum to voice their defiance of orders to surrender their firearms.

David was the keynote speaker and his speech (embedded at Examiner) is well worth the listening time.  Part 2 of the speech is on YouTube.  I appreciate David going and representing all of us, especially with a very good speech.  I must say that although I consider him to be a friend, I have never met him in person (a fact which I must remedy one day).  I find him to be persuasive, a good speaker, and well-presented, even if he isn’t as good looking as I am.

Kurt Hofmann:

Rabidly anti-gun Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA), though, has another idea. She suggests that the Obama administration exploit Yee’s alleged crimes as justification for more restrictive gun regulation.

Of course.  What else would a good collectivist do except argue for more government control?  Kurt uses his powers of logic to upbraid the whole notion raised by this hag.

Mike Vanderboegh has a very interesting take on the recent racially motivated beating in Detroit.  I recall seeing this, and I sent myself a link with the subject line if you’re white you don’t belong in Detroit.  Mike invokes the memory of the Rwandan genocide, pointing out that the victims didn’t have guns.  And I recall thinking about these fellows in Detroit that a gun might have saved them from this beating.  Also we shouldn’t forget that the folks who perished under the evil Idi Amin in Uganda weren’t armed.

Rob Pincus recently did an interesting video concerning use of the AR pistol.  I found myself wondering why anyone would worry about the legal use of the weapons when you are under threat (is it legal to use three points of contact?) just because of what lawyers inside the beltway say.  Of course, Rob points out that the ATF weighed in on this issue, stipulating that use doesn’t matter.  I still wonder why, under threat, anyone would stop to worry over whether you shouldered the weapon.  I understand that it has to do with whether Rob trains folks to do that, but I would train to do whatever saved my life.

Esquire:

What is not working, as Secretary Hagel formulated it, is America’s gun culture. All of these mass shootings took place with privately owned weapons purchased without any sort of serious screening or taken from their rightful owners — a mother or a father, by theft or murder. In essence, you can be a complete and total nutcase and acquire a gun pretty easily …

here is where I think it is time to make my first realistic suggestion on this topic. I already tried polemics, and that got mostly nowhere. So what I put forward is a practical suggestion stemming from my time in the States last month.

Last month I was traveling, in part with my wife and daughter, and I began to notice something. There were a lot more concealed weapons there than I remember seeing before. Four times in the space of just a few days I noticed men carrying pistols under their shirts, in restaurants, stores, and even in a children’s play area of a shopping mall. This craze, which seems new to me because I have been serving overseas for so long, is taking place not just on the streets or in bars, but in family restaurants and places where we all shop. So that is a part of the solution.

What we need to do is make owning guns impractical for everyone. The simple solution for this is not a new law or judicial ruling. It is “voting” with our wallets.

I started to do it last week when I was in a nice seafood restaurant that had food that was so good I was thinking of writing it up and also telling my friends about the place. As an out-of-the-way joint, they could certainly use the free publicity, though they certainly pulled in their share of locals for a blustery Sunday morning. Then I saw the guns.

Nope, not going to do it, I decided on the spot. And I am also not going to bring my kids or my wife in there ever again until they decide that guns are not allowed in their restaurant. And that, friends, is the solution.

I’m not sure what Bateman means when he says “complete and total nutcase.”  Nutcases have had guns before, witness Bateman himself.  But as Bateman knows full well, he is being a prejudiced bigot by defining mental health issues as revolving around propensity to violence when so many mental health professionals know better and have said so.

But this isn’t the point that should have grabbed your attention.  Notice that he began with the killing at Fort Hood, and ended with advocating that people use their purchase power to keep guns away from restaurants.  But only law abiding people would honor a law which stipulates that they not carry in an establishment, and so Bateman has targeted people who would willingly not carry in order to punish law-breakers like the Fort Hood shooter.

Bateman’s gun control isn’t about stopping shootings or reduction of crime.  It’s about his collectivist political beliefs, and he knows it.  And just to top it off, he is a liar and knows it.  He doesn’t really want making the ownership of guns impractical for everyone.  He wants the state to have plenty of them.  He just wants it to be impractical for you and me.

Prior:

Response To Robert Bateman Concerning Guns

The Iraqis, Their Weapons And Gun Control

The Blaze:

On July 9, 2013, a bill to recognize Illinois gun owners’ right to carry concealed firearms was passed by both chambers of the state Legislature. Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns.

Gun control advocates warned that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public.

In reality, the opposite may be happening.

On Tuesday, the Chicago Police Department announced that the city experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 in the first quarter of 2014. There were 6 fewer murders than the same timeframe in 2013 — a 9 percent drop — and 55 fewer murders than 2012, police said.

Further, there were reportedly 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims compared to last year. There have also been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims compared to the first quarter in 2012.

[ … ]

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy called the drop in crime a “trend.” He attributed the drop to the “talent level of individuals” on the police force, “intelligent policing strategies” and other programs. He did not mention the concealed carry law.

It makes sense, of course, but here is the problem with such reports.  John Lott is mentioned, and he continually makes claims about the prevalence of guns being inversely proportion to crime.

Whatever.  I’ve made the point that what happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial.  My rights involve me and my family, and don’t depend on being able to demonstrate that the general health effects in society are not a corollary to or adversely affected by the free exercise of them.

It’s insidious and even dangerous to argue gun rights as a part of crime prevention based on statistics because it presupposes what the social planners to, i.e., that I’m part of the collective.

The Raw Story:

It is a sad fact of life that, in this world that the NRA has made, nothing brings out the hot gun lovin’ like a tragic shooting that happens to someone else at a good safe distance.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, while most American parents were pulling their kids a little bit closer and holding them a little bit tighter, NRA gun nuts reached for the closest AR-15 at hand, and stroked the barrel in an almost erotic fashion while softly murmuring, “Don’t worry baby, I’ll take care of you. Nobody will ever come between us.  I love you.”

Then this writer shows his disapproval for Pat Dollard (I like Pat), Katie Pavlich and Dana Loesch.  Then he gets all effeminate and offended over having his twitter posts blocked.  Goodness.  It got too emotional for me and I had to stop reading.  But I just have one question for this idiot writer.  Who’s he accusing of softly murmuring?

Politico:

Sports broadcaster Bob Costas is not backing down in the face of criticism for his outspoken advocacy of gun control. In fact, he’s challenging his critics to a bet.

Costas was asked about the controversial political positions he has taken on the air, including gun control, in an interview with “Late Night” host Seth Meyers, and said it’s very much an issue in sports that deserves to be talked about.

“Here’s what I would say to anybody who any time they hear the word guns automatically goes off, like, ‘Oh, they’re going to repeal the Second Amendment,’” Costas said. “Let’s make a bet, you and me. Let’s say over the next five years we’ll do a Google search. We’ll have an independent party monitor it. You keep track of how many good and constructive things are associated with athletes having a gun, and I’ll keep track of all the tragedies and criminality and folly. And let’s see who comes out ahead or behind as the case may be.”

Costas said regardless of Americans’ positions on gun control generally, it’s undeniable that sports has a “gun culture.”

“Sports has a gun culture.”  Well so does the South, Bob, and I can say that because I live here.  Why, just a few minutes ago I was shopping online at Hyatt Gun Shop (2330 hours) and more than 5000 people were online doing the same thing.  We don’t run around shooting each other like you seem to think athletes do.  What I think you’re really saying is that professional athletes can’t be trusted, and that makes you a racist.

Herald-Tribune:

In testimony Monday before a Senate committee in Tallahassee, Electra Bustle, lobbyist for the Florida Sheriff’s Association, clarified earlier remarks she made on behalf of her client, stating that the sheriffs realize Floridians have both a right to keep and to bear arms.

“The sheriffs in Florida support the Second Amendment, and we encourage law abiding citizens to take full advantage of their right to keep and bear arms.  I wanna take just a few minutes to clarify some remarks I made in the House committee,” Bustle said. “I tried to make a distinction between the right to own and bear firearms, and distinguish that from a concealed weapons permit, and unfortunately I used words that created a sound byte that now has muddied up the water.”

Bustle’s comments were made before the Senate Military Affairs, Space and Domestic Security Committee, which debated and then passed SB 296, a bill that allows Floridians to carry firearms during a declared emergency and mandatory evacuation.

In previous testimony before the House committee, Bustle told the lawmakers that “there is a difference between owning a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person. Owning a firearm is a right. Carrying concealed is a privilege, and it is a privilege that is earned by showing a higher degree of training and proficiency with a firearm.”

Bustle’s previous comments set off a firestorm of controversy, especially amongst the state’s 7 million gun owners.

“The only thing I was trying to say in the House committee, was there is a distinction in Florida,” Bustle said Monday. “We absolutely have the right, and the sheriff’s support the right, to own and carry firearms, but in Florida, we are a concealed weapons licensed state, and as a result there are certain eligibility requirements required of people who want to carry concealed.”

This is rich.  So she said that there is a distinction between the right to bear arms and the privilege to carry them with you based on approval by the CLEO.  Then in order to “clarify” her wording, she said, there is a distinction between the right to bear arms and the privilege to carry them with you based on approval by the CLEO.  There’s nothing like muddying the waters and then repeating yourself thus muddying the waters.

Here’s the deal.  The waters aren’t muddied.  She said what the CLEOs think, and they think what she said.  She didn’t make a mistake either time.  The CLEOs continue to believe that they are “the only ones,” that special fraternity approved to be in charge of others.  But it goes beyond that.

When I took my concealed handgun permit class, I was already an experienced shooter, and was appalled at the horrible mismanagement of firearms by attendees.  Muzzle flagging and lack of trigger discipline were the order of the day.

It wasn’t like that in Colonial days, where men were required to bring their weapons to church and practice with them along with their families.  But do folks learn the lessons fairly well in lieu of the classes, or does weapons mismanagement cause untold deaths?

Well, let’s turn to Arizona where a law passed in 2010 recognized constitutional carry.  If these concealed handgun courses were so damned valuable, one would expect that the murder and negligent homicide rates would have skyrocketed after passage of the law.

They didn’t.  Turning to Arizona’s statistics (they included negligent and accidental homicide in murder), the numbers run like this: 2006 (462), 2007 (464), 2008 (404), 2009 (317), 2010 (343), 2011 (339), and 2012 (345).

Now let me explain in just a few words what this is really all about.  Revenue.  That’s right.  Money for the permits, financing expensive military toys and bloated salaries for LEOs.

David Codrea:

Acknowledging a necessary self-imposed silence as they marshal their legal resources following a March raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives in which polymer precursor receivers were seized, EP Armory (the manufacturer that supplied Ares Armor, itself the subject of ATF raids) issued a statement Monday updating customers and supporters on the status of their legal plight.

Drop by David’s place to read what they said.  They are in a fight against the forces of darkness, and I’m sure that the privacy rights of their customers has already been violated.  Copies have been made and filed, you can be sure.

Kurt Hofmann:

There’s a reason that the anti-self-defense zealots refuse to make a distinction between the concepts of “guns everywhere,” and “guns everywhere except where there is no potential need for them.” It’s because even they lack the audacity to try to dispute the fact that no such distinction exists.

Kurt’s love of logic is a wonderful thing.  Truly it is.

Does the new WV gun law cause confusion?

“I think the intent of that was to say that if the rec center has a place that would enable the person with a concealed carry permit to lock it away so there’s no way anyone else could get to it, then they can do that,” Palumbo said.  “Otherwise the gun would have to be locked in a vehicle.”

[ … ]

However, the National Rifle Association has an entirely different interpretation.  The NRA’s legal division said, “It is clear that a person with a concealed carry license can (emphasis added) carry a firearm concealed in a ‘municipally owned recreation facility’ even if the facility does provide for secure storage (emphasis added).”

Why is this so hard for everyone?  It isn’t hard for me.  Here’s the deal.  They are talking about recreational facilities.  Folks come in to play sports.  They cannot do that with a carry gun.  They need a storage location in order to secure their weapon.  For the folks who come in to manage, watch and score the games, if they have a permit they can carry on their person.  Again, what’s so hard to understand about this?  See also the emotional meltdown by anti-gunner Danny Jones.  It’s still good for a laugh.

Topeka Capital-Journal:

Good.  Kansas would then become an open carry state.  As I’ve also commented regarding preemption laws:

… in order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.  The state is the right size for law-making and control.  Our founding fathers were wise.

And there are would-be Napoleons everywhere.  Experiences seems to tell us that localities are a good breeding ground for collectivists who want to control your lives and take your money.  The federal Leviathan is far worse.  The State is sometimes worse, sometimes not, but if robust state laws protecting our rights can be passed, it behooves us to prevent localities from interfering with those laws.

If I have any readers in Kansas, keep me posted on progress of this law.

Complete … total … unmitigated … emotional … meltdown.