Category: Gun control

Don’t shoot!

A Georgia waitress has been fired for discharging her firearm during a robbery of her workplace (after she recovered the firearm from her car). While I’m a big fan of the 2nd amendment, I’m afraid she was not justified in her use of a firearm in this case and endangered others by her actions. I’ll have to support her employer on this one.

From Fox News, a quote:

“I safely fired a round in the air in an attempt to scare the robbers who were in the process of getting in their vehicle…”

Two problems here (pay attention, now…!):

  1. They were leaving… not the best time to begin shooting. While someone is within their rights to defend themselves and their property, they must consider the potential impact on others before discharging a firearm.  Her actions could have started a shootout that she was in no position to win, and would also have endangered many other individuals. She should have simply let them go and called the police.
  2. Firing into the air is NOT safe. What goes up must come down, and falling bullets can be deadly.

Sorry – can’t give my support here. In fact, I would say that this type of firearms usage scares the anti-gun crowd as much as armed criminals do the rest of us. Her actions will actually hurt the pro-2nd amendment movement by showing just how dangerous insufficiently trained civilians can be.

Remember – if you or those around you are not in immediate physical danger, leave it holstered and live to fight another day. Don’t endanger others by your actions.

And take an NRA safety class, will you??

Chicago’s crime problem

I’m always surprised (but I don’t know why…) whenever guns are blamed for any increase in violent crime rates. Never mind that overall violent crime and homicide rates have been falling for decades [See U.S. DOJ report and FBI data] while firearm sales (as evidenced by background check statistics) have risen to record levels. Clearly, more guns equal less crime, right? Not according to Chicago.

Note that Chicago city officials and police “…have lamented the flood of illegal guns into the city…”, which is where they place the blame for Chicago’s current homicide wave. OK, Batman, so riddle me this: If illegal guns are the problem, then how will more gun laws solve this problem? The criminals are already ignoring existing laws to obtain firearms as needed; what makes you think they won’t ignore additional laws? More gun laws will only disarm your law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against Chicago’s thugs.

In another disturbing revelation, Chicago police point to another possible cause of the increased violence. Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, as cited in a recent news article:

He noted 2016 was the first full year since the city was forced in November 2015 to release video of the fatal police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, who was black and shot 16 times by a white police officer.

OK, this is very important so pay close attention: note that he does not blame the police office who needlessly shot Laquan McDonald 16 times; instead, he blames being forced to release the video as the reason for Chicago’s increased violence. Can you say “hubris”?

Maybe the real cause of the increased violence in Chicago is the fact that police arrests were down more than 28% in 2016, with the sharpest drop in arrests associated with the areas of highest crime [Chicago Sun-Times]. What would you expect to happen if you no longer lock up the criminals? That crime would go down??

My fear is that the drop in arrests are responsible for the rise in violent crime, but that anti-gun politicians will use it as a means to demand even more onerous (and ineffective) gun control laws that will only punish and disarm law-abiding citizens. I hope – for the sake of Chicago’s remaining inhabitants – that this is not the case.

A “special reason” for gun control

The National Constitution Center operates an interactive constitution that provides for general and specific discussions of the constitution, as well as external viewpoints on some topics (well worth a look). While reviewing the section on the 2nd amendment, I found a viewpoint opposite to my own with respect to the right to bear arms in public. The opposing viewpoint was written by Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law. It seems to me that he is arguing that one should be required to have a “special reason” – beyond simply a right to self defense – to carry a firearm in public. Here is a sample of his argument:

“Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited.” [bold emphasis mine]

Yes, Professor Winkler – a parade can be required to have a permit. However, a “special reason” to have the parade is not a requirement for receiving the permit. The parade organizer does not have to prove that his message is worthy or needs promulgating to obtain a permit, nor can it be denied because the permit issuer doesn’t think the parade is necessary or its topic appropriate.

Also, while police do have broader powers to search pedestrians in public they still must have probable cause. A person does not need a “special reason” to exercise their right to be in the public space, and the lack of such a “special reason” does not in and of itself provide probable cause.

I understand Professor Winkler’s concerns, but I must disagree. The right to self defense is a sufficient reason for law-abiding citizens to be able to use arms suitable for that purpose. They should not have to prove any other “special reason” to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

International gun control?

Michael Bloomberg named World Health Organization ambassador

Note that Bloomberg will be responsible for non-communicable diseases, which includes cancer, diabetes, heart and lung disease, and  – listed later in the article – “combat injuries”. Based on Bloomberg’s long history of opposing the 2nd amendment, how long do you think it will be before all gun-related deaths fall into the category of “non-communicable disease” – like “combat injuries” – and thus fall within his domain? I predict that Bloomberg will use his new post to push for international gun control.

Remember, you heard it here first.

 

To hell with what the law says…

Let’s ignore the 2nd amendment issues for now. When a lawmaker decides to effectively change a law by interpreting it in a radically different way than it is written, then laws becomes an unstable foundation upon which to build a business or household. Actions such as these are a good reason to look for somewhere else to live – someplace where laws are interpreted as a clear text reading would suggest.

The Massachusetts AG has decided to interpret their “assault weapon” law as they would see fit, rather than based on what the law actually says. Their actions effectively ban all “assault” rifles, whether as described in the law as written or not. Note that the firearms in question have been considered legal since the law’s inception and widely sold in the state. It is also important to note that Massachusetts had zero  murders last year  committed with any rifle, let alone an “assault” rifle, making their expanded interpretation of the law solely an act of political grandstanding.

More good people than bad…

We heard a lot last week about concerns regarding open carry at the Republican National Convention. Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, went so far as to suggest that open carry should be banned, stating “… I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not…” (reaffirming the need for the 2nd amendment in the process). This is particularly disconcerting given that he represents police officers who are sworn to uphold the law and the constitution. I can’t be the only citizen uneasy about Loomis’ willingness to suspend the constitution as he sees fit. Is there any wonder why people are apprehensive about the militarization of our police?

Yet, what we didn’t hear about is more important:

No shootings. No accidental gunshots. No gun crime. And no issues with open carry.

There are a lot more good people than bad. When good people are legally and sufficiently armed to be able to protect themselves and their families from those who would use force against them, the bad people don’t stand a chance. As it turns out, the criminals know this, too, and they simply choose to stay home or go elsewhere.

Cleveland police and the constitution

The Cleveland police don’t want law-abiding citizens to open carry firearms at the GOP convention next week. However, the way they want to accomplish this is very disconcerting. In short, they want to ignore the U.S. and Ohio state constitutions as well as Ohio law. Here’s an excerpt from a CNN article that should make everyone think hard about this issue, regardless of which side you take in the gun debate Continue reading “Cleveland police and the constitution”

Interesting statistics

The ability to drive is a privilege. In 2014 there were about 260 million passenger vehicles on the road in the US, and 9,967 deaths due to alcohol-impaired traffic accidents. That’s a ratio of alcohol-impaired deaths involving automobiles to the number of automobiles on the road amounting to ~ 0.00004. This means that approximately 1 in 25,000 cars is involved in an alcohol-related death. The intoxicated drivers are blamed for these crimes, not the automobiles. There are no calls to restrict access to or confiscate autos.

The ability to bear arms is a constitutional right. In 2014 there were about 300 million guns in the US, and 8124 homicides involving firearms. That’s a ratio of gun homicides to number of guns amounting to approximately 0.00003. This means that approximately 1 in 33,333 firearms is involved in a shooting-related death. The guns are blamed for these crimes, rather than the criminals who use them. Calls for new laws restricting access to firearms or their outright confiscation abound.

Go figure.

 

The answer: More gun control, of course.

It is sad that political activists have already begun to call for more gun control in the wake of the assassination of five Dallas police officers last night. But before we jump to the conclusion that taking guns from law-abiding citizens would have prevented this carnage, let’s take a look at how this event was different from others  (or from what could have happened), and how driven killers such as this one will always find a way no matter the restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens. Continue reading “The answer: More gun control, of course.”