Category: Gun control

I’m used to the anti-gun people using empty rhetoric to ridicule gun owners, but this is something else: a satirical work of fiction whose goal is to mock 2nd amendment supporters.

I find it interesting that the concept (ridiculing something in such a way so as to imply that anyone who does not agree is ignorant) has been a long-running component of the anti-gun movement. The technique even appears in the interview of the author in the above-referenced link, when then author makes the following statement:

“I remember talking to my colleagues after they voted against sensible things like “No Fly, No Buy” which says that if you aren’t allowed on an airplane you shouldn’t be able to get a military-style assault weapon.”

Note that the author refers to this proposed “no fly, no buy” law as a “sensible” thing. The problem here is that the no fly list is an arbitrary designation with no legal recourse; you have no legally sufficient means for challenging your being on the list. You cannot even determine why you are on the list. The ACLU has this to say regarding the list:

The process the government has established for people on the No Fly List to challenge their blacklisting is grossly insufficient and violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee. 

So, the author thinks it’s sensible to refuse people a constitutionally-guaranteed right via a method that the ACLU considers unconstitutional? The NRA, their members, and many other Americans are against the idea of using the no-fly list as a means restrict the rights of law abiding citizens when there is no feasible means to challenge the list. I agree.

No one wants bad people to have access to firearms. But the no-fly list, as it stands, is not the way. Pass a law that fixes the no-fly list, then we’ll talk.

BTW – if someone on the no fly list is so dangerous, why are they not in jail? I mean, if you’re going to stomp all over the Bill of Rights, why stop with gun restrictions?

From NPR:

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

Unfortunately, these studies quite frequently are done by people expecting (and therefor biased towards) a particular outcome. A couple of cases in point (all are from the above-linked NPR article):

…the research spread by the gun lobby paints a drastically different picture of self-defense gun uses. One of the most commonly cited estimates of defensive gun uses, published in 1995 by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, concluded there are between 2.2 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

One of the main criticisms of this estimate is that researchers can’t seem to find the people who are shot by civilians defending themselves because they don’t show up in hospital records.

What the authors fail to realize is that not all uses of a firearm in self defense result in a discharge of the firearm; sometimes simply displaying the firearm in self defense will stop or repel an attack. And, in most states, you cannot shoot someone in self defense if the threat is not imminent; if the criminal is retreating as a result of your displaying your firearm in self-defense, in many jurisdictions you can get in quite a bit of trouble if you shoot them anyway. As a result, few uses of a firearm in self defense would result in a hospital stay for the criminal.

…”a more reasonable estimate” of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually…

And that’s bad how? That’s 100,000 law-abiding citizens who are alive today because they were able to defend themselves. Keep in mind that these are likely (as noted earlier in the article) the cases that are traceable because they resulted in a hospital visit for the criminal. What about all the times that the crime was thwarted merely by the presence of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen?

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

Again – that ‘s bad how? Almost 1% of crimes being thwarted by a citizen with a gun – sounds like a successful program to me! It’s also convenient that they left out what kind of crimes were prevented; would it matter to your if it turns out that the 1% were all murders or rapes thwarted by a citizen with a firearm?

David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

“The average person … has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” he tells Here & Now’s Robin Young. “But … every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared.”

Really, David? I’d like to see your evidence regarding this claim. Others have shown that concealed carry permit holders are some of the most honest and law abiding people on the planet – even when compared to police officers. Your assertion that they are more likely to use a firearm for evil are in my opinion completely unsupported.

And, finally, the most important overlooked aspect of such studies: Some crimes are prevented simply because the criminal has reason to believe that the victim might be armed. What do you think would happen to crime levels (for instance, home invasion robberies) when criminals were assured by virtue of restrictive gun laws that their victims were disarmed?

Saying we don’t need firearms – or at least the capability to own firearms – for our defense is short-sighted. It’s like saying we don’t need a national military force because no one has attacked the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. How long do you think that argument would hold once we eliminated our military forces? Yeah; thought so.

Don’t be so quick to disparage firearms. Even if you personally don’t own one, the fact that the criminal can’t know this for certain operates in your favor.

So, can someone tell me why military rifles should not considered an arm protected under the second amendment? Particularly since this amendment is meant to make sure that a standing army could not be used to suppress the rights of the people? Wouldn’t military rifles be an ideal implement for repelling such an army?

I mean, we’re not talking about fully automatic machine guns or anything. I’ve covered this topic earlier as well:

Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules

I  think this cartoon represents well the hypocrisy of blaming guns for gun crime:

Gun control cartoon

Don’t kid yourself, however; the far left is trying to ban metaphorical “forks” as well –  for instance with their soda taxes (examples here, here, and success against one here)

I am not surprised that the educators of our youth are blaming guns for the tragedy that occurred in Parkland Florida, or that they are manipulating students in support of their anti-gun campaign. What does surprise me is how many people are falling for this charade. In reality, it is just a misdirection to disguise their own failure to identify and help young Nikolas Cruz before he became a disgruntled school shooter.

Cruz provided numerous signs of trouble long before his shooting rampage, and was reprimanded several times by the school for his behavior. Teachers warned against allowing him in school with a backpack (that could conceal weapons), and he was eventually expelled and banned from campus. Students after-the-fact have commented that “…finding out it was him makes a lot of sense…”, demonstrating how clear was his potential threat. And still, educators and administrators did nothing to get young Nikolas the help he needed.

No, instead they turned to their students for cover. Students to whom these educators were responsible for teaching the constitution of the United States; students of whom I’d be surprised if one could name the first 10 amendments, or describe the meaning and purpose of the 2nd amendment. Malleable students, ripe for exploitation by their professed superiors and for whom the media exposure of this debate would enhance their Facebook profiles, became pawns in a cover-up of the true failures of the system. Students who very likely played a role in the generation of people like Nikolas Cruz by their persecution, exclusion, isolation, or oppression of “lesser” peers. Students who will likely, at the end of this manufactured protest against public ownership of firearms, go back to their school yards and continue to bully the same kids as they did before. They simply won’t know that it was the failure to identify and help Nikolas Cruz that actually caused the deaths of 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Instead, they’d rather accept the panacea that restricting the rights of Americans – rights guaranteed under the constitution – for the actions of one one-millionth of the population will solve this problem.They’d rather eliminate a means of defense for law abiding citizen, and see what it’s like when only criminals are armed. They’d rather eliminate a means for the people to defend themselves against tyranny, a means of ensuring that the power will always remain with the people, and see what kind of government they get.

Be careful what you wish for…

The governor of Florida should veto the gun bill passed by the Florida’s House and Senate this week. Here’s why:

1. It goes too far in restricting gun ownership by young adults. Rifles of ANY type (including assault rifles) constitute a very small component of firearm-related deaths (although they usually are very visible); you are more likely to be bludgeoned to death with a hammer than shot with a rifle (any rifle – including all so-called “assault rifles”). Still, I would sleep better knowing that high school students and teenagers could not purchase a semi-automatic rifle. However, banning these young people from ALL rifles is too extreme. Single-shot, bolt-action or pump-action rifles and shotguns should be allowed for the 18-21 age group, just not semi-automatic firearms.
2. The three-day waiting period penalizes law-abiding citizens when they might actually need a firearm for protection; this will leave some at the mercy of any thug who has already purchased (or stolen) their firearm.
3. It creates a new and unnecessary bureaucratic money pit,  the “Office of Safe Schools”. Yeah, like that won’t cost a bundle and do nothing useful…
4. It allows officers to seize firearms without due process (really; read about it here). This is very disconcerting, since it allows police almost unfettered discretion in making the decision that someone is a danger to themselves or others. It would be more correct to provide a mechanism for their arrest and evaluation, which will have the same effect as taking their guns (since they will be separated), but will give those arrested the right to contest the seizure in court with the results of the evaluation in-hand prior to the seizure. There is just too much potential for abuse of this provision (and the state of civilian oversight of police is currently less than adequate).
5. There are many more provisions that are not being describe for the public. The bill should be trimmed down to remove unnecessary restrictions and form a simple, direct bill.

I recommend the following (Only!; we can always add more, but un-doing bad law can be problematic):

a) Those 18 to 21 years of age cannot buy semi-automatic rifles, but can buy single-shot, bolt-action and pump-action rifles and shotguns.

b) Place police officers at each school. The number of police officers should be consistent with the officer to population ratio of the local police force. For instance, if the local police force has 1 officer per 1000 people, than the number of police at a school of 2000 students should be 2. HOWEVER, allow administrators the discretion (rather than the police officers) as to how the students are disciplined. Misdemeanors or petty crimes that can be best handled through school or parental action should be left to the discretion of the school administration; only violent felonies should result in arrest (schoolyard fights are NOT a violent felony! They are children, and they should not be imprisoned for acting as such). These police officers should also have special training so that they become part of the fabric of the school, rather than desk-jockeys there only to handle arrests; their workload should reflect additional duties. They need to have functions in addition to simply wielding police powers.

c) Teachers can be armed (with proper training), and when trained can displace 1/2 of a police officer each for up to 1/2 of the total police presence required under section b) above.

NO OTHER PROVISION ARE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT! Let’s see how this works before restricting the (constitutional) rights of our brethren.

The NRA supports the rights of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for hunting, sport and defense purposes. They are advocates for their members, not lunatics. And yet several companies, including United and Delta, have decided that the NRA is somehow to blame for the latest school shooting and have eliminated discounted services previously offered to NRA members.

Tell me, Delta and United:  Did you stop offering discounts to all of the “Auto Club” chapters when a truck was used to kill 84 people in Nice, France in July of 2016?  How about for GMC, Ford and Chrysler – all of whom build trucks? No? Why not?

To blame law-abiding citizens or their associations for the acts of terrorists is wrong.