Fight restrictive gun laws--for the CHILDREN!

Almost every time a push is made for yet another draconian restriction on firearms, the "arguments" will include an emotional plea to pass the law "for the children." It makes a fairly effective rhetorical device--after all, arguing against protecting children tends to look rather bad. The gun rights deprivation lobby has fallen so deeply in love with the tactic that they often cite statistics that include the deaths of 20-year-old gangbangers as "children killed by gun violence."

Of course, they never talk about incidents like this one, in which a 14-year-old and his mother may very well have saved their lives with a handgun. They also would prefer not to talk about incidents in which denying children access to firearms has caused the deaths of children.

The Gun Guys like to go so far as to argue that no house that ever has children in it should also have a gun--and no precautions (such as trigger locks, gun safes, etc.) are good enough. I suppose it's a sensible stance for them to take--if they can discourage gun owners from reproducing, our society might eventually consist only of anti-gun pantywaists who would hold the warped views that would produce the "gun-free utopia" the Brady Bunch, et al dream of. The anti-gun bigots are silent about what one is supposed to do to protect his or her children when a predatory psychopath kicks down the door--I suppose the plan is to call 911, so at least the police can get there soon after the children have been killed.

Fight to protect your Second Amendment rights--do it for the children.

Self-defense gaining ground in the public consciousness

I only today learned of the (fairly) new TV show, Personal Defense TV, on The Outdoor Channel. Apparently, this show is the work of Guns & Ammo magazine. I have not yet had a chance to see it, but I am definitely pleased with the development. Considering some of the names involved (like Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith, and others), there is certainly a great deal of knowledge to be gleaned from the program.

The larger issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the existence of such a program shows how far our society has come in realizing that each of us is responsible for our own safety, as is clearly illustrated by the fact that the courts have ruled over and over again that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens.

People in ever growing numbers are waking up to the fact that in a dangerous world, having a firearm handy for protection, and being proficient in its use and knowledgeable about the applicable laws just makes good common sense. This can only make our society safer.

With Ayoob's presence on the show, I have little doubt that along with the nuts and bolts of self-defense, a great deal of attention will be paid to how to avoid ever needing to shoot in the first place. It is perhaps unrealistic to hope that this program will be seen by some of those who are adamantly opposed to legally armed law-abiding citizens. That's too bad, because I imagine seeing the program could go a long way toward making clear the fact that those of us who arm ourselves against trouble do not do so out of a desire to kill, but out of a desire to live.

U.N. says the Bill of Rights is a human rights violation

Recently, I mentioned the U.N.'s interesting assertion that there is no human right to self-defense. Not being as sharp or knowledeable as Dave Kopel, it escaped my notice that the U.N.'s position is even more extreme than that--they're actually claiming that a lack of gun laws even more insanely draconian than those in Washington DC constitutes a violation of human rights.

The U.N. report contains the following passage, showing the degree to which they believe nations should be compelled (by international law) to restrict private ownership and use of firearms:

It is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. … The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness. Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.

Here's an excerpt from Kopel's excellent article, explaining how the U.N. Human Rights Council (which is horribly misnamed) and their designated "expert" on the subject (University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey) came to the remarkable conclusion that anything less than a virtual ban on private ownership of firearms constitutes a human rights violation:

BY THE FREY/HRC standards, every American jurisdiction is a human rights violator because its gun laws are not severe enough. Even in New York City or Washington, D.C., the government does not require a gun license applicant to prove that he or she has "a legitimate purpose." Once New York City or D.C. finally let you buy a shotgun, you can use it for any legitimate purpose—sporting clays, gunsmithing practice, collecting or even self-defense (assuming that you somehow can retrieve the locked gun in time to use it against a home invader).

At every gun store in the United States, buyers must pass a background check under the National Instant Check System (or a state equivalent). Most states do not require a separate license for handgun purchases and even fewer require a license for long gun purchases. Only a few states mandate that a person who simply wants to continue owning the guns he already has must renew a license from the government every few years. The absence of mandatory, periodic licensing for continued possession of one’s own guns is another human rights violation, according to Frey.

It seems the U.N. would insist that we nullify the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and virtually outlaw self-defense, or be labeled as a nation that violates human rights. So be it. We'll keep our Bill of Rights, and they can call us what they want. "Sticks and stones . . . " as they say.

Another book about the evils of gun rights advocacy

Well, I endured reading Sugarmann's torturously written Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns--now maybe I should see if my school library will get Joan Burbick's Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy.

According to the review linked to above (which by the way, refers to the book in positively glowing terms), the gun rights movement (for which the NRA seems to be a synonym, in the minds of those who disparage the idea of gun rights) is rooted in racism, misogyny, and religious intolerance (oh yeah--I think homophobia was mentioned, too). The review ends on this note:

By the end, you get a lucid, thoughtful understanding of why the "gun rights" culture and the NRA are so tied at the hip to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, because they both yearn for the day when the white male reigned supreme.

Obviously, I haven't yet read the book, so I'm not really in a position to critique it, but if the BuzzFlash review above is very accurate about the book's contents, it would seem that Burbick is rather far off base. NRA members who are also members of ethnic minorities certainly don't see the NRA as a racist organization. The NRA's efforts to recruit women are coming along nicely, and I doubt NRA president Sandra Froman is much of a woman hater. There are also gun rights groups like the Second Amendment Sisters. As to religious intolerance, the gun rights movement includes Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (considered, by the way, a much less moderate gun rights advocacy group than the NRA). I certainly wasn't asked about my religious beliefs when I joined the NRA. The gun rights movement also includes the Pink Pistols--whose motto is "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed."

Being a gun rights advocate does not imply any of the social evils the book seems to associate with it. Our backgrounds are diverse, but we are united in our love of freedom, and our knowledge that freedom can only be protected by those who are free. Argue against gun rights if you must, but argue the issues, instead of inflicting groundless attacks on the character of those of us who have committed ourselves to the fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Ronnie Barrett--gunmaker, patriot, hero

We live in a world in which the bottom line trumps all--the idea of a corporation putting principles ahead of profits seems quaint and naïve. The gun rights deprivation lobby would have us believe that the gun industry is among the very worst culprits in this profit-motivated abdication of social and moral responsibility. Ronnie Barrett, of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., shows us that the idea that gun manufacturers amorally seek profit at any price is a myth, perpetuated by the anti-gun zealots.

In the early 1980's, Mr. Barrett pioneered the commercial production of long range rifles, chambered for the powerful .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun (.50 BMG) cartridge. I've talked about these rifles before, mentioning that their vast cost, huge bulk and weight, punishing recoil, and other factors make them extremely unsuitable for the commission of crimes (which might explain their almost total absence from crime statistics, and the fact that not a single documented death in the U.S. has been attributed to shots fired from such rifles). They are, however, quite useful (for specialized purposes) to the military, and have found a niche in the civilian market with wealthy target shooters who like to shoot at ranges that would be sheer fantasy for rifles of lesser caliber.

In 2004, anti-gun zealots in the California legislature showed their nearly absolute imperviousness to logic, and passed a law banning private ownership of these firearms in the state of California. Ronnie Barrett could have moved on, realizing that California is only one state (and perhaps the most rabidly anti-gun state in the union), and further realizing that he would still be able to sell to police departments (some large city SWAT teams find the big guns useful). There may, in fact, have been a larger market in California in the law enforcement sector than among private citizens. Barrett, however, had other ideas. It is illegal to knowingly sell firearms to criminals, and the California government, by instituting and enforcing the unconstitutional ban on private ownership of these rifles, has itself become a criminal enterprise. This being the case, Barrett has refused to sell any more rifles to any agency of the California governement (including municipal police departments), and will not perform any servicing on guns purchased by these agencies before the ban.

That is moral courage, and it constitutes a stand that will cost him a considerable sum in lost sales, but it's a stand that principle and morality dictated.

More recently, Barrett has introduced a brand new rifle caliber (and has started offering rifles chambered for it). This caliber, the .416 Barrett, although smaller than the .50 BMG, is still quite powerful, and capable of useful accuracy at ranges even greater than the capabilities of the .50 BMG. Even better, it is completely legal in California (at least until the gun haters ban it, too), so private citizens in California may buy it freely, while no agency of California government will be able to (because of Mr. Barrett's courageous stand).

Ronnie Barrett is a true patriot, and is a worthy American hero.

It's the criminals, stupid!

The Brady Bunch has recently released another of their "reports", called "The NRA: A Criminal’s Best Friend." It consists of the typical anguished bleating of the gun rights deprivation lobby--their standard response to efforts to lift some of the more draconian (not to mention ineffectual) gun laws with which our country is saddled.

Readers of the "report" will find many references to the NRA "handcuffing," and "hamstringing" federal law enforcement efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Richard Pennington, chief of the Atlanta, Georgia police, is quoted as advocating putting " . . . handcuffs on the NRA’s lobbyists." Apparently, he hates the Second Amendment so much that he is willing to push for stomping on the First Amendment rights of those who would dare fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The NRA backed legislation that seems to be the particualr focus of all this ire is fairly innocuocs--H.R. 5092, which would merely make permanent measures implemented for the last several years, prohibiting public release of gun trace data; H.R. 5005, which would make provisions for fining gun dealers who inadvertently commit minor paperwork errors, as opposed to the current situation, in which there is no middle ground between warnings and license revocation; and H.R. 1384, which would lift worthless and onerous restrictions on interstate handgun sales.

The gun rights deprivation lobby's ostensible reason for whining so piteously about these bills is that they would "help to put guns in the hands of criminals." Let's talk about that, shall we? A huge majority of gun laws (both on the books and proposed) are intended to prevent sale of guns to criminals. That sounds good on the face of it, but consider--if a person is considered too dangerous to be allowed to go into a gun store and purchase a gun, how can he be trusted not to steal a gun? How can he be trusted not to buy one on the black market (and no combination of laws will shut down the black market--if that were possible, the "war on drugs" would have been won a long time ago)? How can he be trusted, even if somehow prevented from getting a gun, not to kill with some other implement?

If we want criminals to stop killing people, we need to keep them locked up. Our criminal "justice system" has become a system of catch and release, with violent, repeat offenders back on the streets in a tiny fraction of the time they should be incarcerated. If prison overcrowding is a problem--tough. Prison isn't supposed to be comfortable.

The criminals' best friend? The system that isn't willing to do the hard work of holding them responsible for their crimes.

Democrats don't have to be enemies of gun rights (and if they're smart, they won't be)

Regular readers (I might be flattering myself) have probably noticed that, after the Gun Guys, my biggest source of ridiculous claims to refute is Josh Sugarmann, head cheerleader of the Violence Policy Center. In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Josh expresses his dismay over the fact that some Democrats have discovered that a platform that includes civilian disarmament (remember, I despise the term "gun control" in the sense in which it's generally used) has become an increasingly difficult sell. Acting on this realization, these Democrats have started moving away from attacks on gun rights, and in some cases, have even started actively supporting them.

This, of course, is a nightmare for the gun rights deprivation lobby, because it would be the beginning of the end of them having a major political party as puppets to advance their agenda. So Josh desperately tries to tell Democrats that supporting gun rights will never bring Second Amendment advocates over to their side. In his words,

There are, in fact, two parties for the pro-gunners. Unfortunately for Democrats, they're the Republican and Libertarian Parties.

He backs this claim up this way:

For proof, look no further than the November 2006 issue of the National Rifle Association's America's 1st Freedom magazine. The November 'Choose or Lose' issue is little more than a 64-page attack on Democrats, with a particular focus on Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

This ignores the fact that the NRA has donated $20 million to pro-gun Democratic candidates for their campaigns in the upcoming elections. The particular focus on Schumer and Pelosi in the "Choose or Lose" article is precisely because of their extremism in attacking the Second Amendment.


Granted, it has been largely true that passionate advocates of gun rights want nothing to do with the Democratic party. What Sugarmann doesn't bother to mention is that it doesn't have to continue to be true. Democrats can take away the near monopoly that the Republican party enjoys with regard to the pro-gun vote, simply by abandoning attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Admittedly, the returns on such a reversal of positions might be meager at first. Democrats will have to overcome decades of gun rights activists' mistrust, stemming from the words and actions of powerful Democrats like Diane Feinstein, Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and many others (on the local and state levels, where battle lines over gun issues have not always been drawn along party lines, Democrats could benefit from a pro-gun stance much more quickly).

What would such a move cost Democrats? Very little, it seems to me. I haven't seen statistics, but I would be almost certain that the number of people who are so passionately in favor of restrictive gun laws that the issue dominates their voting decisions is extremely small (significantly less, I would wager, than the number of gun rights activists who view it as a make-or-break issue).

Democrats who can convincingly claim that they will uphold the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment, could find themselves the beneficiaries of gaining the alliance of at least part of what may be the most loyal, motivated voting bloc in the country.

The NRA's biggest sin? Apparently, it's being successful

I've mentioned before how venemous the anti-gun folks get when discussing the NRA--I've seen three-year-olds throw more restrained and reasoned tantrums. Yesterday, some of my favorite anti-gun folks, the Gun Guys, found a new reason to get their knickers in a twist about the NRA.

Evidently, the Gun Guys are upset that the NRA has the unmitigated gall to be effective in organizing members to vote for candidates who support gun rights, and against those who would infringe on those rights. Furthermore, those darn NRA members actually go along with the plan, and vote in such a way that our rights are indeed protected. Evidently, the Gun Guys (and Josh Sugarmann--another of my favorite gun rights deprivation lobbyists) think it's wrong for NRA members to be so fully engaged in the political process, and to refuse to vote against our own interests. Of course, the Brady Bunch makes voting recommendations, too--aparently it's fine for them to do so (that list can be useful, too, by the way--just vote the direct opposite of what it says). Maybe instead of complaining about how effective a grass roots organization the NRA is, the Brady Bunch and the VPC should concentrate on mobilizing their own supporters just as effectively. Of course, it could be that they can't get that kind of response, because there just isn't that kind of support in the U.S. for crushing a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of individuals. If the anti-gun folks realize that (on some level), that would explain their sour grapes, I suppose.

One of the amusing aspects of this is that the Gun Guys almost ceaselessly deny that the NRA is a grass roots group (their grounds for this assertion are somewhat vague, though), and that supporters of gun rights constitute too small a voting bloc for there to be any logic in legislators acting for our interests. Now, however, they're apparently acknowledging that we do indeed form a voting bloc that needs to be taken into account (although they don't seem to think it's "fair" that we manage that). They even go so far as to presume to accuse the NRA of subverting the Constitutional process of representative government (especially ironic coming from a group who claims that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any kind of right--which begs the question of why the founding fathers bothered including it in the Bill of Rights in the first place):

That is, of course, hardly what our forefathers wanted when they laid out the electoral system. Americans are meant to vote their conscience, not blindly follow a lobby that has convinced them with platitudes that they need to vote a certain way or else. The gun lobby is clearly and openly abusing the electoral process, twisting the system to follow their own gameplan rather than doing what they’re meant to do: release their viewpoint in the wild and let it stand on its own merits (or, in their case, the lack thereof).

Basically, encouraging NRA members to vote for legislators who respect the Constitution and the rights it guarantees is "openly abusing the electoral process. . . ," and members who follow the voting advice of the NRA are "blindly follow[ing] a lobby. . . ." What the Gun Guys think voters should do is blindly follow the fear mongering directives of the anti-gun lobby--that, of course, is exactly what the founding fathers had intended.

When the NRA points out the breathtaking scope of the anti-gun agenda that certain extremists have in mind, the Gun Guys accuse them of "spreading fear." This accusation completely ignores the actual words and deeds of the radical anti-gun legislators, such as Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it," or Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) trying to ban virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition, or any of a multitude of other words and deeds showing beyond any doubt that many of these people want every private citizen in the U.S. to be completely disarmed. We don't need the NRA to tell us that our gun rights are threatened, many of our enemies have no interest in even trying to be subtle about it.

If these people hate the NRA so much, the solution to making the NRA irrelevant is a simple one. All they have to do is stop attacking the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA has gotten this strong because gun owners have seen that they need to organize to protect their rights (and the Constitution itself). Our will is strong, our cause is just, and we shall overcome.

Think you have a fundamental human right to defend your life? The UN doesn't.

In a perusal of this document, from the UN's conference last July about "small arms and light weapons," I learned that the UN disagrees with the idea that self-defense is a human right. This passage from page 9 is illustrative:

A. Self-defence as an exemption to criminal responsibility, not a human right
20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal
duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal
responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes
designated as a "right". There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.
Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as
such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
21. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources
of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is
recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of
self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.15
Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human
Rights. According to one commentator, "The function of this provision is simply to remove
from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful
violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State."

Three pages later, we see passages like this one:

Even if there were a "human right to self-defence . . . "

In other words, it looks as if not only do they deny that there exists a fundamental human right to self-defense, they seem almost to disparage the idea.

How can a group that claims to champion human rights be so contemptuous of what might be the most vital and fundamental of those rights?

The UN hasn't yet explicitly tried to insist that the U.S. repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but it seems clear that very many member nations would like to.

That's just too damned bad for them.

What Reuters doesn't say about "gun violence"

Reuters has decided to enter the gun rights debate in the U.S. The article, not surprisingly, takes the view that the U.S. has entirely too many firearms in private hands, of varieties that are entirely too powerful for civilians (can anyone tell me what the hell a "high powered 'assault weapon' " is, and how it varies from a "regular powered" so-called "assault weapon"?), sold, possessed, and (gasp!) even carried with entirely too few restrictions and too little bureaucratic oversight--and that's why about 30,000 Americans (or about one in 10,000, or .01%) die of gunshot wounds every year.

Of course, it would take a fair amount of drama out of their story if they mentioned that over half of these deaths are suicides, meaning that the number of people who die of gunshot wounds who didn't want to die is less than 15,000, or in terms of the population as a whole, not 1 in 20,000, or .005% of the population. Part of that not quite .005% of the population consists of people who were shot and killed justifiably, either by police, or by armed private citizens who refused to be victims of felonious thugs. Still another slice of that pie consists of gang members shot by other gang members, in wars over drug dealing turf. The last two categories hardly seem a great loss.

The article also points out that there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S., and that this number climbs (or "swells," in the author's colorful parlance) by several million each year. That "swelling" brings up an interesting point: if the number of shooting deaths is directly correlated to the number of firearms, and if the number of firearms increases by several million each year, shouldn't shooting death numbers rise accordingly? Well, they should, if the premise of "more guns = more shooting deaths" holds true, but according to data from Centers for Disease Control, this isn't the case, with shooting deaths per 100,000 staying constant (from 1999 to 2003--the years for which I found data) within a few percentage points (and vastly lower than in the dark days of the early to mid 90's, when there were vastly fewer states with concealed carry, and in which the ban on so-called "assault weapons" got its start).

In fact, a major study conducted by the CDC found no proof that gun laws reduce violence. You can bet your backside that Reuters didn't bother to mention that particular fact, despite its clear relevance to any discussion about gun legislation and its success (or lack thereof) at reducing violence.

Much better to simply ignore facts that don't fit the intended slant.

What are restrictive gun laws good for? Nothing--but don't let that stop them

I concern myself chiefly with the gun rights debate in the U.S., but this article, about a poll conducted in Canada, is instructive, I think, in showing the attitudes that drive advocacy for restrictive gun laws everywhere.

According to the poll, only 14% of Quebec residents own firearms. Even for a place with such a low rate of firearms ownership, popular support for gun laws so restrictive that any attempt to implement them in the U.S. would provoke a civil war are astonishingly popular--a full 81% support an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms (apparently under the theory that it's much better to be killed with a revolver), and 85% believe that non-hunting weapons should be used only in gun-clubs, and should be stored in a central location, instead of in the owners' homes. The odd part (quite apart from the extreme oddity of advocating such draconian restrictions) is that many of the people advocating the restrictive gun laws do so despite realizing that such laws will do little or nothing to reduce violence. Fewer than half (47%) think more restrictive gun laws will help to reduce violence.

In other words, a huge plurality of those who advocate stricter gun laws do so without being under any illusions that such laws will be useful in efforts to improve public safety. They know these laws are no more than a "feel good" measure, they admit it (at least in polls, which are fairly anonymous), but they want them anyway. They don't like guns--so no one should have access to them.

One has to wonder if there is much difference between the poll respondents in Canada, and the more outspoken gun rights deprivation lobbyists here in the States, such as Sarah Brady and Josh Sugarmann. I had always assumed that they, in their naiveté, really believed that the laws they try so hard to force on us would make a real difference in improving society's safety. Perhaps it is I who have been naive, in thinking that their motives were so noble (the misguided nature of their efforts notwithstanding). Perhaps they, like the poll respondents in Quebec, simply dislike firearms, and know that their arguments about saving lives are just a red herring that helps advance their true agenda of banning private firearm ownership outright.

I've mentioned before that I'm not a big fan of the term "gun control." The main reason for that is that guns don't go "out of control"--they only shoot wehre the muzzle is pointed, and except for rare malfunctions, only do that when the trigger is pulled. But the other reason that the term "gun control" is a lie is that it's intended to confuse people into thinking that it's about guns, when it's really about control--and disarmed people are much easier to control.

No blog tonight

Between the World Series and the NFL (and the fact that I haven't really come up with anything to write about today), I'm taking a break. I imagine I'll have some gun legislation (whether already on the books, or just proposed) to complain about tomorrow.

See you then.

Gun Guys apparently think of themselves as CSI: Fayetteville

We learn from the Gun Guys of the near tragedy of a young woman being shot in a mall in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Due in no small part to the timely assistance of two 82nd Airborne Division combat medics (stationed at nearby Fort Bragg), who had served in Iraq and gotten plenty of experience with gunshot wounds, she survived, and is expected to recover fully.

The shooting seems to have been an accident--the result of a small pistol being carried directly in a pocket, without a holster, falling out of the pocket, hitting the floor, and firing. The interesting part of all this is that from the very sketchy information contained in the article linked to by the Gun Guys, they have come up an amazingly detailed theory about what happened (and used that theory to buttress their "argument"--such as it is--for the outlawing of concealed carry):

But what you can do it cut off gun access at the source– make carrying concealed weapons illegal. The person who carried this firearm was probably one of the NRA’s "law-abiding gun owners." Up until this point, they probably carried their weapon legally. It’s likely that they didn’t know the weapon didn’t belong in the mall (even though it seems common sense to most of us), because they probably have a permit to carry it around the entire state of North Carolina.

The Gun Guys don't offer any explanation as to how they determined that the gun was probably carried legally--it just wouldn't serve their argument very well if it wasn't, so they said it probably was.

Of course, whether or not the person with the gun was authorized to carry it or not, this method of carry was stupid and irresponsible. How one person's stupidity and irresponsibility should dictate the laws for everyone else is another matter.

In an update to this story, we learn that the person who dropped the gun seems to have been the victim's 19-year-old boyfriend (hopefully, ex-boyfriend), who is already on probation for convictions on misdemeanor charges. I am not familiar enough with North Carolina concealed carry legislation to know if a 19-year-old person on probation can be licensed to carry a concealed handgun, but I strongly suspect that he cannot.

Maybe the Gun Guys ought to stay out of the detective business.

Don't like the sound of freedom? Then legalize the means to turn it down

One increasingly prevalent avenue of attack on shooting (and, thus, an attack on gun ownership) is the growing resistance to shooting ranges--with, generally, the objection being the noise produced by all the shooting. Anyone aspiring to open an outdoor shooting range, even in a remote, lightly populated area, can expect a real fight--in more densely populated areas, it's almost impossible. Even worse than that, though, is the practice of many real estate developers of building suburbs near the sites of gun ranges that have been in operation for years (or even decades)--knowing that many of the residents will object to the shooting sounds. This problem is compounded by the fact that when the annoyed residents take their "point" to court, they often win, or at least cost the range so much in legal fees that it's not worth fighting.

The most appalling part, though, is the fact that an accomodation that would suit very many of the antagonists is readily available, except for the fact that it's illegal.

I refer, of course, to suppressors (more popularly, but not especially accurately, known as "silencers"). These are very tightly controlled under federal law (as part of the National Firearms Act of 1934), and beyond that, are banned outright in many states. Why is that? Beats me--it certainly has nothing to do with a rash of "silenced gun violence" (of which there has been almost none--ever).

For those who don't like the sound of our guns, how about lifting the restrictions on our putting a volume control on them?

LA trying to turn crime victims into criminals

In this article, we see that Los Angeles has passed a law that makes it a crime for a victim of a gun theft to not report the theft to the police within 48 hours. Stellar idea, isn't it? Incredibly, they actually made the law retroactive--requiring owners to report any gun stolen within the last 5 years.

Unbelievable--placing responsibility on the shoulders of crime victims.

Here's an idea, LA--how about concentrating on actually arresting criminals, instead of crime victims, who (for whatever reason) choose not to report their victimization.

Reading a poorly written book--so you don't have to

In an earlier post, I mentioned a book (Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns) by everyone's favorite anti-gun zealot, Josh Sugarmann, of the VPC. I was curious enough as to just what the case for banning handguns could be, that I resolved to read the book if I could find it at the library (I certainly wasn't going to pay for it, thus helping to fund the civilian disarmament lobby). As it turns out, my school library has a copy, and I finished it yesterday.

To my disappointment (if that's the word for it), Sugarmann didn't really advance many arguments that the gun hating crowd hasn't already trotted out a million times before. Probably the most interesting "feature" of the book is that it drew heavily on the "research" of discredited historian Michael Bellesiles, author of Arming America, the Origins of the National Gun Culture. In this book, Bellesiles makes the claim that prior to about the mid-19th century, gun ownership was the exception, rather than the rule, in the U.S. However, after compelling evidence was brought to light that much of the information contained in the book was seriously flawed (many have called it fraudulent), Bellesiles found it necessary to resign his position at Emory University. He was also stripped of the Bancroft Prize, which Columbia University had bestowed on him for the book in question, before the problems with his "research" were discovered. He was, amusingly, referred to as "the Milli Vanilli of the academic world." The book's publisher, Knopf, quickly withdrew the book from distribution. Even formerly enthusiastic reviewers of the book eventually labeled him as a fraud and a liar. Sugarmann's book, however, was published when Bellesiles was still the darling of the civilian disarmament movement, which had (in a wild excess of optimism, it turns out) seen him as providing much needed scholarly legitimacy to the idea that guns were not such an integral part of American history after all.

Another problem that Sugarmann seems to have with private ownership of handguns is that too high a percentage of handgun owners are white males. He doesn't really make clear why the gender and racial makeup of handgun owners should factor into a debate over banning handguns--unless he is trying to imply that handgun ownership is associated with racism and misogyny (a rather bizarre thought, it seems to me). Oddly, he also decries the gun industry's attempts to market firearms to women and minorities, despite the fact that success in those endeavors would help to address what he seems to see as the "problem" of white men owning a disproportionate number of handguns.

I read this book with the idea that it might provide me with insights into the thinking of those who wish to disarm Americans, but as it happens, it only deepened my conviction that there's not much thinking in their position, at all.

Washington Redskins help underpriveleged D.C. area youths--anti-gun groups outraged

Today, the Washington Redskins host their Second Annual Sporting Clays Challenge, to raise money for the Redskins Charitable Foundation, to benefit youth in the D.C. area. Sounds like a great thing, doesn't it? Not if you're a rabid, gun hating extremist. You see, this event is being held in partnership with the evil NRA, so any amount of good it does is more than washed out by that fact--not to mention that at this shooting event, there will be (gasp!) guns, and some innocent clay "pigeons" (small, clay disks, actually) will die.

So, that's why we have anti-gun lobbyists such as those at the Violence Policy Center whining piteously for the Redskins to cancel the event.

Actually, this year's outcry is a great deal more muted than last year's--perhaps because last year's event (the first time it was held) generated $150,000. Even these folks are apparently sufficiently in touch with reality to realize that they do their credibility no favors when they argue that raising that kind of money for youths is . . . bad for youths.

Last year, before the event was held, the clowns were fully mobilized--the Gun Guys posted no fewer than three articles (link to all three) making the odd assertion that money that the NRA helps raise is evil, simply because the NRA is involved (by the way, the Redskins take exactly ZERO part in the political battles in which the NRA is engaged, and it's hard to imagine how this event helps advance the NRA's missions--but when has logic had anything to do with what the anti-gun folks say?).

In another article last year, Josh Sugarmann, the VPC's head cheerleader, seemed to be predicting that the Redskins would back away from this evil...charity for underpriveleged young people, when they heard the mighty roar of the anti-gun pantywaists:

Sugarmann said he thinks the team has been blindsided by the outcry. "I believe if the Redskins had a better idea of what they were getting into, they wouldn't have gotten into it," he said.

Well, Josh, having done it once already, they must have a pretty good idea of what they're getting into, and yet they're doing it again--guess you blew that call, didn't you? Nice try.

Still, the stuff I've posted so far is mild compared to what these geniuses screeched last year. It's amusing enough to quote in its entirety:

REDSKINS FOOTBALL ORGANIZATION HAS NOW GONE TOO FAR!

What a hypocritical outfit this is! Their nonprofit "Charitable Foundation" certainly has no idea of how to be charitable to the hands that feed it. Among other things, the foundation’s mission statement tells us that its goal is to utilize its assets "to make a positive and measurable impact on youth in the greater Washington, D.C. region in the areas of literacy, youth development, education, community service and health and wellness."

We presume the foundation, by this statement, truly believes in extending its largess to the youth of inner city DC and thereby help to lift their sights to a higher purpose than being caught up in the potential dead-end future that can so easily engulf them in their neighborhoods in which violence is so prevalent.

Violence that is made so easy to come by thanks to the constant flood of guns -- everybody seems to be able to get a gun at a moment’s notice and too many of those kids think nothing about shooting each other with them just to settle some trivial argument over things like buying someone’s girlfriend a snow cone or simply mouthing off as teenagers are wont to do.

So here we are with our civic leaders and ministers and elected officials all uniformly struggling to find a way to get guns out of the hands of the kids -- and note that we are emphasizing the kids and the need to make their lives safe and hopefully meaningful and not even addressing the other side of the coin, which is about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals -- yet one of our city’s most prominent corporate citizens is in fact noting the supposed glamour of gun usage!

What we are specifically on our high horse about is the participation by the Redskins and its owner, Daniel Snyder, in the forthcoming October 25th National Rifle Association (NRA) "shooting event" which is to be a fund-raiser to benefit the Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation.

Ladd Everitt, president of the DC chapter of the Million Mom March which, working closely with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is the nation's largest national, non-partisan grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, as we were getting ready to go to press issued the following statement with which we are in absolute agreement:

There is no way that the Redskins can reconcile the stated mission of their foundation with the tacit endorsement of an organization [NRA] that disrespects District residents to such a degree that they would push legislation that directly endangers our children's lives. The NRA's attempts to repeal our gun laws are a historic violation of DC home rule and an absolute slap in the face of every victim and survivor of gun violence in this city.

As the DC-based Violence Policy Center pointed out in an October 10th letter to Daniel Snyder, the NRA "is currently lobbying Congress to overturn Washington, DC’s gun laws. The bills to repeal the District of Columbia’s gun laws promoted by the NRA would: legalize handguns as well as semiautomatic assault weapons and 50-caliber sniper rifles; allow any person to carry, openly or concealed, loaded handguns and other concealable firearms in houses, places of business, or other land 'possessed by that person'; and, severely weaken the District’s ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition."

The mayor and all our officials of government, including all members of the city council must make it absolutely clear to Daniel Snyder that he forthwith disengage the Redskins organization from any connection with this or any future NRA-sponsored event. Just the mere fact of any connection between an organization that professes to be part and parcel of our city’s civic life and a vicious organization such as the NRA has absolutely no justification. Further, should Daniel Snyder not see how horrific is his involvement with the NRA then it would not be at all out of line for our city’s leaders to sever all relationships with the Redskins organization.

Just take a look (if you can control your nausea) at the cover of the current issue of the NRA’s monthly magazine, America’s 1st Freedom, and you will see our city once again vilified with that old Right Wing canard of "Washington, D.C., America’s Murder Capital" and the mayor depicted as a patsy in a two-page photo spread showing him seemingly holding up his hands as if to give in to criminals, with the caption, "D.C. to Criminals: We Surrender! The mayor of Washington, D.C., the Murder Capital of the U.S. for 14 of the last 15 years, strikes a telling pose as he defends D.C.’s absurd gun laws."

This is all just simply too disgusting to deal with any further other than to reiterate our urging that either Daniel Snyder get rid of the NRA or we get rid of him and his team!

Brilliant! I'm sure the people of D.C. would think of these folks as heroes, if they managed to drive the Redskins (and all of the money the team brings in) out of town.

The most compelling reason for Stand Your Ground laws

Those opposed to private ownership of firearms for self-defense (or for any other reason, it seems) are especially outraged over the number of states that have followed, or are in the process of following, Florida's lead in adopting laws designed to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens who shoot in self-defense. "It's bad enough that people have guns," the anti-gun folks seem to be saying, "but it's absolutely unconscionable that they are permitted to use them to defend themselves, without having the trauma of enduring such an incident compounded by criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation!"

The protection from litigation is, in my opinion, the most vital feature of these laws. It is probably true that most justifiable shootings don't subject the shooter to jail time, even without the Stand Your Ground laws (although that's certainly not universally true--the case of Harold Fish comes to mind). However, the justified shooter does very often face lawsuits, from either the wounded assailant (if he survives), or his family (if he does not). There are vast numbers of cases to choose from to demonstrate that point--I'll include links to a couple of them, here, and here.

Even when the shooter (who, keep in mind, is the crime victim) wins the case, he or she can be ruined financially, because of the vast expense of legal representation (and, as the second case illustrates, insurance companies are not required to pay the attorneys' fees). The monetary cost, as devastating as it can be, is dwarfed by the trauma of being dragged into the courtroom, facing the possibility of financial ruin much greater even than that caused by the legal fees.

Finally, how is justice served by providing a large monetary award to the criminal or his family?

Stand Your Ground laws serve to protect the rights of crime victims--not the perpetrators. To anyone who is not pro-criminal, this has to be seen as a good thing.

If I need to know how many guns I should be able to buy in a month, I'll ask my credit card

It seems that the "gun control" measure du jour these days is the "one gun per month" law. The thinking (I'm being generous here), apparently, is that this will prevent those nasty "gun traffickers," who don't themselves have criminal records, from buying handguns by the dozen, for the purpose of distributing them en masse to criminals whose records would prevent them from buying the guns themselves. When gun rights advocates point out that such a measure punishes everyone who wishes to buy a couple handguns at a time (or within a 1 month period), they are met with the reply that no law-abiding gun owner needs to buy 12 handguns in a year.

The most obvious problem with such a careless dismissal of the very valid concern that such laws would constitute a gross violation of rights is that "need" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The buyers of no other legal product are required to prove a "need" for their purchase. Cars kill vastly more Americans than guns do, but a car buyer is never asked to demonstrate his need for a car. Even SUV's, the leading culprits in the conversion of a vital natural resource into potentially extinction-causing (depending on how much one believes in the global warming theories) pollution, are sold without any question as to the buyer's need for such vehicles.

Another problem is the question of where such measures are going to stop. When they are implemented, and criminals continue to get guns (as they always have and always will), and kill innocent people (as they always have and always will), how long will it be before it is decided that no one "needs" more than 6 guns per year, or 4, or 1? In fact, New York City's mayor Bloomberg is already pressing for laws limiting handgun purchases to one every four months. Where this is headed, obviously, is the ultimate goal of declaring that no one "needs" any handguns. The fact that the slippery slope argument is a cliche does nothing to make it any less true.

Instead of attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens, in a futile attempt to shut down the black market in firearms to violent criminals, let's get the violent criminals themselves out of circulation. Anyone who is so dangerous that the (almost certain to fail) endeavor to keep guns away from him is important enough to impose restrictions on our entire society, is too dangerous to be on the streets.

Learning to fight violence--as savagely as possible

Today's topic is only tangentially related to guns. It will still, most likely, be upsetting to the folks who decry our nation's "gun culture," if they happen to read it, because it's about fighting back--stubbornly refusing to cower and wait for rescue. It is, to amplify, about developing a fighting mindset, and stealing the initiative from anyone who threatens innocent people with destruction. As it turns out, some students (and teachers and staff) in the Fort Worth area are being taught just that. When a gunman shows himself and starts barking orders, these people are being taught not to obey, but to fight, with whatever is at hand--books, pencils, fists, and feet (and teeth, fingernails, etc.).

Some, predictably, are calling this a recipe for disaster, saying that sending unarmed children (the plan in this Fort Worth school district is to teach this to every student, including the elementary school kids) to fight a gunman is grossly (perhaps criminally) irresponsible. I would reply that what is criminally irresponsible is allowing them to go on thinking that the best they can do is to try to hide under their desks and wait for the rescue that will almost certainly not get there in time.

Despite the fact that this won't "put more guns in schools," as they like to rail hysterically against, the anti-gun people aren't likely to get on board with this idea. They can't, because to do so would be to acknowledge that defense is not only the right, but the responsibility of the individual, and once one acknowledges that, it becomes very difficult to justify legislating a ban (or tight restrictions) on the most efficient means of defending oneself. To their way of thinking, teaching people to defend themselves from criminal thugs helps to perpetuate what they call the "culture of violence" in our society, and that, in turn, is what they think is responsible for society's "sick fascination with guns." They know that destroying any interest in guns would win their war on gun rights for them.

To their (rather odd) way of thinking, the perfect world is one in which anyone who wishes to be capable of self-defense is ostracized as a dangerously violent obstacle to their "brave" new world.