Charlie's Last Question

 

On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was at Utah Valley University for one of his outreach events, this one billed as "America's Comeback Tour".   As was his modus operandi, Charlie was debating with a student, this time on the topic of 'transgenderism'.   The student had just asserted that 'gun violence by transgenders' (tgv) was a minuscule — an almost imperceptible — portion of the whole spectrum of 'gun violence', and Charlie had just asked for a clarification:

Charlie's last question was   "Counting or not counting gang violence?"   At that instant, a sniper's bullet severed Charlie's left carotid artery and he collapsed in a pool of blood, his last question unanswered.   It is said that had a trauma surgeon been sitting at Charlie's side at the time, it would have made no difference.   The wound was not survivable.

Why would Charlie Kirk have thought such a 'clarification' important?

The United States occupies 3.8 million square miles.   That's a lot of space in which 'gun violence' can occur.   But...   if you were to put a pin in a map of the U.S. for every incident of 'gun violence', you might be surprised (or maybe not) to discover that most of those pins were clustered into several small areas, viz: the 'inner cities' of two dozen or so of our larger cities.   The area of those clusters, combined, is about 400 square miles, one one-hundredth of one percent of the total area of the nation.

If you were to exclude those areas — where much, most, or all of the nation's 'gang violence' occurs — from the crime numbers for the whole of the nation, the U.S. would look like a very safe place, indeed.

So, if you compare tgv to the national numbers, you get a very different answer depending on whether you're including those inner city numbers or not.   If you include gang violence, then tgv disappears in the haze.   If you exclude gang violence, tgv is a startlingly large portion of what's left, far out of proportion to the percentage of transgender individuals within the U.S. population.

It's a trick question: — if the answer is 'including', then the student is implicitly admitting that tgv is akin to gang violence;   if the answer is 'excluding', then the student risks their basic premise: that tgv is a minuscule problem.

And that's why Charlie's last question was — and still is — important.

 

Hallelujah!

 

Today, June 23rd, 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas, born on this day in 1948, delivered the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking at the beating heart of New York's flagrantly unconstitutional Sullivan Act.

The Sullivan Act, passed in 1911, establishes strict gun control within New York State with particular application within New York City.  It guarantees that obtaining a personal firearm is going to be a long and costly bureaucratic nightmare.  Beyond that, obtaining permission to actually carry that firearm on your person is nearly impossible.  A few years back, I posed the question "How many concealed-carry permits are there in New York City?"  The answer I derived was '2,291'.  In a city of 8.8 million people, that is statistically zero.

Two New York residents who had 'possession' permits for their pistols (valid only at their home or business) wanted to carry those firearms concealed on their persons and were denied because, in keeping with the Sullivan Act, they were unable to demonstrate to the examiner that they had a need to be armed beyond simple self-defense.  Five other states (you can almost guess who they are, can't you?) impose similar or identical restrictions.  The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association funded the several lawsuits resulting from that denial, culminating at the Supreme Court as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Thomas has several times in the past castigated his fellow justices for turning away 2nd amendment cases that were similar to Bruen, and it appears his complaining has finally borne fruit.  The 6-3 decision gave Thomas the pen since the 2nd amendment seemed to have been his pet project.  Finally, he has the ability to author a strong defense of the 2nd's original meaning.  The 135 page decision will take some effort, no doubt, but given Thomas' erudition, it will be worth every minute.

Thank you, Justice Thomas.  We have been waiting so long for this.  Happy birthday.

 

Update:  I have managed to actually read the official opinion (footnotes omitted) and there is something else in there that I didn't realize originally: NYSRPA v Bruen also explicitly instructs lower courts that when dealing with 2A issues strict scrutiny is the applicable level of judicial review.  That means that any new or existing law, when it appears before a lower court, the state must now make a compelling case that the law at issue is both compliant with the Constitution and necessary for the public safety.  When challenged, NYS will have to defend its $445 fee for doing a background check beyond that done (for free) by the federal government.  Good luck with that.  They will have to defend the overly intrusive 32 page questionnaire each applicant is required to complete.  Good luck with that, too.  Basically, the entire Sullivan Act is now at risk of being gutted like a perch.

 

Uvalde, TX

 

Well, it's happened again.  A mentally-deranged teenager has shot up another school, this time an elementary school in Uvalde, TX.  There seem to have been several warning signs that were handled, not surprisingly, inadequately by the authorities, nineteen 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-graders are dead along with two of their teachers and the shooter who was killed by a Border Patrol officer.  Thoughts and prayers, &c.

Texas, it turns out, allows school districts the option of letting their teachers be armed on the job.  This school district chose not to allow their teachers to be armed.  As a result, the 18-year-old shooter had no opposition after barricading himself in a classroom full of potential victims.

How long are we going to put up with this?  How long are we going to put up with ivory tower academics who are more concerned with the negative P.R. associated with teachers who are ready and willing to defend themselves and their charges?  How long are we going to be bullied by a gun-phobic bloc of teachers who threaten to quit and make a scene if any of their colleagues are permitted to pack heat in their classrooms?

How many dead children are we willing to put up with until we implement a real solution?

 

California AWCA Struck Down

 

I'm just going to drop this here and let any interested reader draw their own conclusions.

https://thepriceofliberty.org/2021/06/14/californian-lies-so-blatant-even-a-judge-recognizes-them/

 

UPDATE:  6-22-2021

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has extended the judge's original 30-day stay indefinitely, but didn't, apparently, reverse the ruling, although it's difficult to imagine a different reason than that the panel disagrees with the ruling's holding that the law was unconstitutional.

 

Gun Control and El Salvador

 

Tucker Carlson tonight aired an interview with the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.  Bukele fretted over the fact that it was the bold, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs, the economic drivers that were fleeing El Salvador and making a hazardous trip north to the United States.  The incentives the United States offers to new immigrants are draining the lifeblood out of his country.

As I watched him describe how murders in his country have been reduced by 75% in recent years, I wondered what 'gun control' looked like there.  This is what WikiPedia has to say on that topic:

Salvador law aims to allow and regulate civilian possession of firearms.  In order to get a firearm license one must have no criminal record, be at least 21 years of age (24 for a carry license), pay a tax stamp (around $32 dollars) and undergo a written test.  The process takes around three hours in total.  In 2017 there were 344,587 registered firearms in El Salvador, or 5.6 per 100 people (1 in 18).

All things considered, that's pretty easy-going for a Central American country, and that may be related to the sudden drop in murder.  An armed society, after all, is a polite society.

What does that say about Salvadorans who flee the poor economic climate at home for the United States?  People like David Codrea worry that Central American immigrants are going to be heavily Democratic in their politics.  This says something different: Salvadorans are going to expect to be able to arm themselves in this country, and I suspect they will not be closely attuned to Democrats' traditional stance on guns and gun ownership.  I suspect they're going to be joining the NRA or GOA and thumbing their collective noses at Democrats' efforts to disarm the American people — of which they hope to soon be part of.

Such a population merged with others from the same or similar cultures constitute a contractable virus.  Salvadorans are going to infect their compadres with the desire to be free (at last) from the fears that drove them north.  They're going to want to be free — freer — than they were back home.  They're going to want their own guns.  They're not going to be Democrats, at least when it comes to 'gun control'.  On that issue, they're going to be Americans.

 

Timing Is Everything

 

There's a fresh new piece of anti-gun legislation being groomed for its prime-time appearance before a largely Democratic Congress.  It's called H.R.127 and it has all the elements of a gun-grabber's wet dream:

• universal background checks,
   
• psych evaluations on entire households,
   
• a ban on vast categories of heretofore-otherwise-lawful weapons,
   
• HUGE taxes and fees required for mere possession of what's left,
   
• mandatory periodic training,
   
• a publicly-accessible database of all gun owners (and their inventory?),
   
• and increases in the budget, authority, and power of the most corrupt of all corrupt federal bureaus and agencies, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Totally unconstitutional, of course, but when has that ever stopped Congress?  Why is it unconstitutional, you ask?  Stop me if I get any of this wrong...

Rule #1 of 'jurisprudence' world-wide is that later law trumps earlier law.  A law passed today can be repealed by a law passed tomorrow.  That's so straight-forward it almost doesn't rate putting it down on paper.  Then

1. The fundamental axiom of the American System is that 'rights' are an endowment from God or Nature or some other metaphysical entity that is outside of and above government and, in fact, pre-exists government.
    
2. Governments do not have rights;  they have powers and authorities granted to them by we the people, from whom all such power originates ('the consent of the governed').
    
3. The vehicle for granting such powers and authorities is The U.S.Constitution.  The Constitution was ratified and came into force in 1789.
    
4. The Second Amendment, concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms, was ratified in 1791, two years after the Constitution.
    
5. In 1934, and then again in 1968, Congress passed gun control laws, justifying them as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
    
6. Both of these acts should be considered unconstitutional because the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted in Article I of the Constitution in 1789.  If those powers ever included authority over firearms and other weapons, that authority was revoked in 1791 with the passage of the Second Amendment.  Timing is everything when it comes to 'constitutionality'.
    
7. That 'fresh new piece of anti-gun legislation' being prepped in the House suffers from the same disability.

But the worst part of H.R.127 isn't that it's unconstitutional.  The worst part is that it will be impossible to comply with.  The monstrous cost of attempting to comply will price most poor or minority families out of the market or, alternatively, send millions of them to prison.  Clearly, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) either hasn't given this much thought or simply doesn't care that she has codified a brand new poll tax on many of her constituents.

The former marks her as more stupid than Maxine Watters;  the latter as more cruel than Bull Connor.

Keep up the evil work, Sheila.

 

Ranks of Gun-owners Explodes

 

I'm hearing stories of people rushing to their local gun stores and panic-buying guns.  News reports suggest these are "pro-gun fanatics" doing the buying in anticipation of the need for self-defense armament in the face of the current corona virus pandemic.  That seems extremely unlikely.  All the known "pro-gun fanatics" already have guns and ammunition sufficient for their self-defense without the necessity of expanding their collections or stocking up.

No, I believe these are primarily first-time gun owners who are worried that the breakdown of civil society is going to impact them and their families harshly.  If they haven't already, they're suddenly realizing that in extremis, they are their families' best or only defense and their first thought is "I had better get myself a gun".  When they get to the gun store, they get a nasty shock.  A series of nasty shocks, actually.

One, there are long lines.  There are reports of lines wending out the door and down the block of people waiting their turn to get in so they can look at the merchandise and make their selection.  The lines are long because those who are busy making their selection are taking their time about it — because they don't know anything about guns and need lots of help from the harried staff — because they're first-time buyers.  Any reputable gun store will only sell you a gun if they're confident you're competent to operate it safely, therefore they take the time to show you the features of whatever you're buying.

Two, the selection is narrow because — hey, a store can only stock a certain amount of stuff, right?  In places like California, the selection is even narrower because only certain firearms are even legal to sell in that state.  Yes, California has an official list of firearms that may be sold or possessed within that state.  A Glock 17 in standard black may be legal whereas the same gun with a powder-coated finish may not.

Two(a), in some states (NY, NJ, CA again, IL, HI, maybe others) you need a 'permit to purchase' before anyone will even let you look at or touch a firearm in their store.  To get that PtP, you will need to visit your local police department or sheriff's office who will do a pre-BGC BGC.  They're busy with other things like crimes and your petty concerns are not high on their priority list.  When they do get around to you, they can take as long as they want before issuing the PtP.  NY and NJ are notorious for taking six months or more before you can even walk into a gun store to examine your impending purchase.

'Impending purchase'?  Yes, three, throughout the United States there is a mandatory minimum waiting period during which the Famous But Incompetent FBI will complete a background check to ensure you're legally entitled to purchase a firearm.  Almost everywhere, it's three (3) days, but in some places (California, again), it's ten (10) days.  Oh, you wanted that gun right now?  Yeah, sorry, but you can come by on Tuesday and pick it up, except...

Four, FBI, which does those background checks, is having a problem with staffing because of the Moo Goo Gai Panic, and just announced that it might take as much as twenty-eight (28) days to complete yours.  Aha, but the law says any BGC not completed in three (3) days is to be treated as a 'pass'!  Gotcha!  Well... no.  These days, when the FBI can't complete the check on time, they issue a 'conditional disapproval' — and they're issuing lots of CDs these days.  Sorry.  Game over.  Thank you for playing.  What '2nd amendment'?

Five, when those panicky first-time buyers get frustrated, they flip open their laptops and hit the web because it's easier just to buy your gun over the internet.  Suddenly, they discover that you actually can't buy a gun over the internet without having it shipped to a local Federal Firearms Licensee, the same people who can't handle the flood of new customers wanting to buy their wares.  Naturally, they will take time out of their busy day to help you fill out the Form 4473 for somebody else's merchandise, but you'll still have to have a BGC which could take as long as 3 or 10 or 28 days before you actually take possession of your new hardware.  That's after it gets shipped across country.

I don't know for certain, but I would bet a lot of money that many of those first-time buyers experiencing the roadblocks outlined above were, until a few days ago, hard-line supporters of 'reasonable restrictions on who can get a gun', and they are, also for the first time, beginning to understand why all those "pro-gun fanatics" were so upset over each new reasonable restriction.  They're faced with a situation that does not treat lack of preparedness kindly and is especially cruel to those who weren't even aware that they weren't prepared.

Welcome to the party, pals.

 

A response to 16 liberal talking points

 

A friend posted these 16 theses on Facebook with the proviso: "(Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine)".  Each of these 'liberal talking points' deserves an individual reply, but since I have been disinvited to post anywhere but my own page...  so let it be written; so let it be done.

—==+++==—

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members.  A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected.  Period.

Resp:  It is the essence of 'civilization' that the old, the weak, the infirm, and children are cared for and protected when they cannot do so for themselves.  On this count, there cannot be any argument without first abandoning any pretense of civilization oneself.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all."  This is not the case.  I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative.  I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it.  And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

Resp:  To say that healthcare is a right reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of 'rights'.  One cannot have a right without a corresponding responsibility.  My right to own a gun, for instance, carries with it a responsibility not to use it for evil.  What responsibility is associated with a right to healthcare?  It can only be that someone is charged with the responsibility of providing healthcare.  Who would that be?  Here is a case where, again, the productive sector is being asked — no that's not right — is being ordered to provide for someone who can't or won't provide for themselves.  If it were only the old, the weak, and the infirm, our innate moral sense would urge us to do this without coercion, but that's not what's at stake here, is it?

3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone.  It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

Resp:  What we see as 'the education crisis' is largely manufactured by bad public policy.  Suppose the government decided that teachers must be able to get to work teaching and offered a $10,000 tax rebate for any teacher who bought a new car.  What do you think would happen to the price of new cars?  If you guessed that the price of cars would suddenly jump by several thousand dollars, you can see why the price of a college education has quintupled in just a few decades.  (The same analysis, by the way, applies to that 'housing bubble' of a few years back.)  Market forces must be allowed to 'price' the value of a degree in Medieval French Literature or we will soon find ourselves with scholars who can quote verbatim 13th-century love poems but can't be employed anywhere but McDonald's.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work.  I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this.  Ever.  I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor.  Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this.  Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

Resp:  Jack is not rich because Jill is poor.  There is not a causal relationship between those two things.  There is a causal relationship between 'Jack is rich' and 'Jack runs a government-sanctioned monopoly'.  If you're serious about solving the problem of wealth inequality, you're not going to do so with simple-minded redistributionist schemes.  Plus, recognize that there will always be some inequality; some people are more talented than others, and some don't see money as the be-all and end-all of life.

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly.  If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

Resp:  Well, you just pinned two things that can't happen without government intervention, and you think the answer is 'more government intervention'.  I don't know how to counter that.  Checkmate.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage.  Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes.  What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water.  Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multi-billion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

Resp:  Should companies have to pay 'x' dollars for work that isn't worth 'x' dollars?  What do you do with employees who don't/can't/won't contribute to your bottom line at least the equivalent of the minimum wage?  Answer: you fire them and replace them with machines.  What happens to your business if ALL your employees produce less than you are forced to pay them?  Your business is now 'your former business'.  Good idea?  Then, too, 'minimum wage jobs' aren't meant to provide a living wage.  They're meant to provide the kind of experience one needs to get a better job.  If you can only make minimum wage, you shouldn't be starting a family.

7. I am not anti-Christian.  I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc.  (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal).  All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs.  When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" — I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules.  You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you?  That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me.  Be a Christian.  Do your thing.  Just don't force it on me or mine.

Resp:  THAT is a true 'liberal' position, one that all the founding fathers would have applauded.  It boils down to 'leave me alone', a sentiment we find all through the revolutionary writings, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.  Where did we go wrong?  We said "Hmm.. clean food and untainted meat: good idea; let's have an FDA..." and we were off and running.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you.  I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

Resp:  Another true liberal position, but who says they have fewer rights?  Would that be... umm... Congress?

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally).  I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

Resp:  While Republicans (and occasionally Democrats) might dispute this, the Constitution nowhere grants authority to anyone, Congress or the President, to control immigration (you could look it up).  Congress is granted power 'to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization', and that's as far as it goes.  Surprised?  Whether you acknowledge it or not, the root of the current malaise is not 'immigration' per se, but rather the welfare state we have allowed this country to become, that and the fact that Congress has bobbled the ball on that 'uniform Rule of Naturalization' thingy.

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc.  It's not that I want the government's hands in everything — I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE.  Is the government devoid of shadiness?  Of course not.  But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc.  Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

Resp:  I would much rather have Consumer Union inspecting my food than FDA and USDA.  CU has a vested interest in maintaining their reputation for honesty and fair-dealing.  FDA and USDA?  Not so much.  Every drug ever recalled by the FDA was first determined to be safe and effective by the FDA.  As to 'consumers have recourse', I refer you to the vaunted 'tobacco settlement'.  Was any of that monster fine used to recompense anyone actually harmed by smoking?  Nope, and the terms of the settlement immunized the tobacco companies against lawsuits.  Nice people you're hangin' with...

11. I believe our current administration is fascist.  Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities.  Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

Resp:  If by 'fascist' you mean 'controlling the means of production', then we've been fascist for about 170 years.  I think what you mean is 'totalitarian', and we've been that for about 120 years.  Only the fact that 120 million Americans own 400 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammunition has kept the government from lining people up against the wall.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed.  Which means those with privilege — white, straight, male, economic, etc. — need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

Resp:  Does that mean you want to forbid facial tattoos and eyebrow piercings?  Because if anything 'marginalizes' people, it's that.  Most marginalization of people results from the decisions of the marginalized rather than their skin color or gender.  Efforts to coerce an end to that marginalization results in bakers being sued for turning away profitable business.  Coercion is bad no matter what the reason.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government.  What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun.  (Got another opinion?  Put it on your page, not mine).

Resp:  There is not a single 'sensible gun control policy' in the liberal catechism that would have saved even one life — ever.  If anyone has proof that that's incorrect, I'd like to see it.  120 million Americans own 400 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammunition.  If any appreciable fraction of those were as dangerous and unstable as they are made out to be, there wouldn't be 30,000 fatal gunshots each year; there would be 30,000 fatal gunshots each month.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness.  I prefer to think it’s social politeness.  If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles.  It’s the polite thing to do.  Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better.  When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better.  So why not do better?  How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

Resp:  I will happily call someone 'Theo' rather than Theodore, Ted, or Eddie, and I may even — if they ask politely — refer to them as 'Your Serene Boffness', but I'll laugh when I do.  Force me to do that?  That's really what this is all about, isn't it?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs.  There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.  Sorry, billionaires.  Maybe try investing in something else.

Resp:  The laws of physics are immutable.  No amount of wishing will change the fact that wind, solar, hydroelectric, and thermal energy together cannot — that's an important word: cannot — sustain the world's current lifestyle, but it can destroy entire national economies trying prove that they can.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human.  They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse.  Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

Resp:  The laws of nature are as immutable as the laws of physics.  Men cannot bear children and parthenogenesis doesn't work for our species.  That means that men and women are biologically different, and no one with even half a brain disputes that.  That women must bear the children and are in a relatively fragile state while doing so means that they cannot — there's that word again — work the same as men.  At some point, they are forced (!) to attend to the birthing process and not attend to 'their job'.  Men provide muscle mass and DNA; women create civilization; let's not screw that up.

I think that about covers it.  Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other.  That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money.  It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.

Resp:  That must mean you're anti-war.  What are you doing voting Democrat (or Republican)?

 

The Wrong Path To School Safety

 

Following the St. Valentine's Day Massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there has been the easily-predictable wave of calls for even more civilian disarmament, but this time it's different.  Those calling for more stringent gun control are the students of MSDHS in concert with schools all across the country.  Florida has passed a law that, among other things, raises the minimum age for buying a long gun to 21; federal law sets the minimum age at 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns.  Unspoken by the mainstream media is that the student protests, including rented buses for getting their voices to Tallahassee and Washington DC, are being funded by deep-pocket anti-gun organizations like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety among others.

Naturally, politicians of all stripes are paying rapt attention to these teenagers.  They're not old enough to exercise most of their rights, but they're clearly old enough to have opinions on everybody else's rights.  It's not a surprise that Democrat politicians have jumped on the "Throw Lots Of Money At The Problem" bandwagon, but the GOP (you know, the ones the NRA buys with their campaign contributions) seems to have signed on as well.  Heck, even Governor Scott is happy to squirt a half billion of somebody else's dollars at it if it seems like it will pick up a few extra votes for Senator Scott when he's term-limited out of the Governor's mansion.

Why not the — to the gun-rights proponents — more sensible tactic of allowing properly-trained teachers to carry on the job?  This suggestion is always answered by a litany of strawman arguments:  teachers aren't supposed to be cops;  the majority of teachers don't want any more guns in their classrooms;  if you make me carry a gun, I'll quit;  what happens when a teacher accidentally shoots a student?;  and on and on...

Most of those arguments are based on pure fantasy or pure fatalism.

Teachers aren't supposed to be cops.  And nobody wants them to be, least of all the teachers themselves.  That said, a recent survey suggests that 1-in-5 teachers would, if they were legally permitted, bring their own firearm with them.  Did you catch that?  Their own firearm.  No additional expense to an already overbloated school budget for "supplying guns to teachers".  Those teachers already have firearms with which they are conversant, and with which they train — probably more often than the deputies who will be called to respond to the next school shooting.

And there will be a 'next one'.  Nothing that has been proposed so far will prevent another school shooting.  The best you can hope for is to minimize the damage.  Oddly, having teachers ready to respond immediately to a shooting may be the best option:  in the 14 states that now permit armed teachers, there have been no (0) school shootings since that policy went into effect.

The majority of teachers don't want...  What if a majority of teachers didn't want a School Resource Officer present, either?  Would you consider that something we should all pay attention to, or would you say "don't be stupid!"?  Why should a bloc of teachers who are of one mind endanger the safety of the entire school?

Oh, you think keeping teachers disarmed enhances the safety of the school?  If we look at "concealed carriers" as a class (and, yes, any teacher who goes armed would have to have a concealed carry license) and compare them against "law enforcement officers" as a class, we find something very odd:  licensed concealed carriers are more law-abiding than are the police — they even return their library books on time — and when they have to shoot, it is the police who are 5.5 times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander.  You're worried about the teachers?  Worry about your SROs!

If you make me carry a gun, I'll quit.  Nobody will make anybody carry a gun (and you know it).  Those teachers who volunteer and who demonstrate proficiency will be the only ones (legally) carrying, and since it's concealed, neither other teachers nor the students will know who is or who isn't.

What happens when a teacher unintentionally shoots a student?  It's silly to suggest that no teacher will ever unintentionally shoot a student who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.  It is going to happen.  That unlucky student is more likely to be shot by the SRO (see above), and if that 'bad shoot' happens in conjunction with a real school-shooting event, it's fair to wonder about the odds of dying in a school without armed teachers.

If you have an open mind, you may by now be rethinking your objections to the notion of "teachers as first responders".  School shootings are like terrorist incidents:  they happen at random and without warning (that authorities pay attention to).  Because they are a diffuse phenomenon, any response, to be reasonably effective, must also be diffuse.  The remedy must be wide-spread to the point that at any moment and in any place you can say with confidence "we're prepared".

Sure, you can splash money all over the problem and get very, very close to an ideal solution.

Or you can treat your teachers as if they actually have a brain and let those who are willing provide the best solution.

For free.

 

Can we Prevent School Shootings?

 

All the talking heads, both media- and otherwise, are babbling on about how to prevent the next horrific school shooting, and I'm shaking my non-talking head over the plethora of non-solutions being offered:  ban assault weapons;  raise the age-to-purchase to 21 (someone even said '25');  better, more comprehensive background checks;  on-site mental health professionals to look for warning signs;  more SROs (School Resource Officers).  The list goes on and on.  I just want to ask one question.  Would any of these or even all of them together have prevented the last shooting?

My conclusion is that, no, not even all of these together could have prevented that event.  Each of them can be worked-around — where the system itself doesn't simply fail in its assigned task.  You can have all the SROs you want, but if they're all outside having a smoke break and decide they're not going to risk their lives just to save a bunch of teenagers...

No, it's not possible to prevent the next school shooting.  The best you can hope for is to mitigate the damage — ideally, down to zero — and there's only one way to do that:  there have to be people ready to answer the threat at the very moment it arises, at the very spot where it arises, and the more people who are ready, the better.  More SROs, you say?  At Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, the well-paid armed SROs cowered outside waiting for the gunfire to die down while the underpaid and unarmed teachers tried to shield their students from the carnage.  P.s.: it didn't work.

Now, nobody is suggesting teachers must be armed.  Neither you nor I want to see a teacher who is unfamiliar with firearms and who, in fact, doesn't want to be around guns nevertheless forced into such a supremely uncomfortable position.  But there are some teachers who (a) own guns, (b) are comfortable being armed, (c) would rather be able to defend themselves and their charges, and (d) wouldn't turn down a 'training and readiness stipend' if offered.  Did you say you don't believe there are that many teachers who would volunteer?  Certified firearms instructors across the country offer free or reduced rate classes specially designed for teachers and school staffers, and they report that thousands of them apply for the hundreds of slots available whenever they're offered.  They turn out for the classes even when they know there's no chance the school board is ever going to bend on the issue.  That is:  they're trained and ready and unable to put that training to use because they work in a gun-free zone of mandated defenselessness.  In case of another school shooting, all they'll be able to do is run and hide until they're found and killed.

Well, the last couple of shooters used rifles.  Are we going to pit trained teachers armed with pistols against untrained nutjobs armed with rifles? No, we're going to keep those teachers unarmed because they're going to die anyway, so what's the use?  That's the reasoning (if it can be called that) behind gun-free zones:  everyone is going to die;  let's not make it worse.

Ten states make it easy for properly-trained teachers to be armed on the job.  Do you recall the last time you read a headline screaming "Teacher Goes Berzerk; Kills Student For Texting In Class"?  No?  You can be sure that headline would be repeated on the front page of every newspaper in the country if it ever happened, so I think we can rest assured it hasn't.

So here's where we are:  of the several 'solutions' being proposed to halt the scourge of school shootings, the only one with an unblemished record of success is routinely rejected in favor of others whose only track record is failure after failure after failure.

And when the next school shooting happens at a school where every one of the reforms on the progressive wish-list has been implemented, we will be told "Aha!  We forgot to prohibit..." and a new item will be added to the wish-list.  What won't be added is 'allowing teachers to defend themselves'.

Makes sense to me...  not!

 

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act

 

There's a great deal of controversy surrounding a bill working its way through Congress.  It's called 'the Second Amendment Guarantee Act' (SAGA), and its purpose is to thwart state laws like New York's that impose severe burdens upon lawful gun owners.  Naturally, the anti-gun crowd is opposed to it, but there's also opposition from unexpected quarters, notably The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC).  You know those guys: they're for separation of powers between the states and the federal government and they're opposed to SAGA because they hold that states should get to set their own rules (for the most part).

But...  What about the basics?  What about those rights guaranteed (already) in the Bill of Rights with no need for a law making the guarantee guaranteed?

Should states be able to have their own state religion?  Should states be able to restrict freedom of speech?  What about due process and self-incrimination?  Are these OK for states to violate?  We all know that states can't trash the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Except for one, apparently.

It's OK, according to TAC, for states to regulate the 2nd amendment into meaninglessness.  In most California counties, getting a permit for concealed carry is near-impossible.  In NYC, population 9 million, there are exactly 2,291 concealed carry permits, which is 'statistically zero'.

People from all over now routinely get arrested at NY metro airports (NJ is as bad or worse than NY for this) after following federal law and exacting TSA instructions regarding transporting firearms and related parts.  Just recently, someone was arrested when he tried to declare an empty 30-round magazine at a NYC airport on his way home to a place where it was legal.  NYS law does not permit anyone to possess such an article, even for the purpose of removing it from the state.

Now some (Republican) Congressman wants to put an end to this discriminatory behavior with a law that will guarantee a right that is already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  SAGA will force states to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states.  Let's assume that this legislation will make it out of a Republican-controlled committee to a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate and then to a Republican-controlled White House.  (None of this is guaranteed or even likely, but we're assuming.)  What then? 

Well, SAGA says (net) "yes, you can carry in New York with your Florida permit, but you have to follow New York's laws while you do".  If you know what a 'poison pill' is, you have probably already spotted this one.  New York registers firearms by make, model, and serial, and their carry permits precisely identify which firearms any individual may carry.  My Florida permit does not identify which firearms I may carry;  Florida doesn't register firearms;  I may carry anything.  My Florida permit will get me arrested on my first day in NYC.

You may have guessed that I also oppose SAGA, but I do so for different reasons than does TAC.  I oppose it because it's another useless piece of trash legislation that only exists to garner votes for Republicans.  It will do nothing except get dozens or hundreds of people arrested, jailed, and prosecuted, costing each of them thousands of dollars and wasting months of their time, and some of them will be convicted and become felons forever denied their right to own a firearm.

The correct solution is for The Attorney General of the United States to begin filing actions against states that violate The Law Of The Land: the Constitution.  The (Republican) AGUS can get cases rapidly into federal district courts where judges are somewhat reluctant to rule against their boss — the U.S. government.

Yeah, no, I'm not holding my breath, either, but please do continue to vote for the hucksters that want you to believe SAGA is the answer — to anything.

 

Americans and Guns; A discourse to a casual acquaintance

 

A friend-of-a-friend asked me over coffee why I thought Americans were obsessed (her word) over guns.  What follows is my response.

Let me level-set: have you been to America?  (She had.)  What did you think of it while you were there?  (She thought it generally a nice place but she felt uneasy because of her perception that it could be dangerous.) 

America is generally a nice place to visit.  The violence that one reads about in newspapers and sees on TV is isolated and concentrated to several quite small geographical areas.  Were you to plot on a map the locations of all the violent gun-related events you hear about via the mainstream media, you would be surprised (or maybe not) to discover that almost all of it happens in no more than two dozen compact areas all of which are part of a handful of major cities: Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, Camden and Newark NJ, and a few others.  These compact and isolated areas make up a very small fraction of America’s nearly 4 million square miles — possibly less than 400 square miles in total — and one’s chances of being involved in a violent gun-related event outside those areas is vanishingly small.  Indeed, most of that violence shares a single profile: it is almost entirely black-on-black crime, primarily drug related, and it occurs in places where legal possession of guns is difficult-to-impossible.  In other words, the people committing those violent crimes are already criminals before the first trigger is pulled.  (As an interesting statistical ‘aside’, those hyper-violent places are all — every single one — in cities that have overwhelmingly large Democratic voting populations and have been so for decades.)

So, why then do Americans obsess so over their guns?  It is certainly a cultural phenomenon probably an echo of our frontier heritage, but it also has a political aspect: we are expected to be armed as a way of insuring against the rise of tyranny — however improbable you may think that may be.  Those who wrote our Constitution felt that only an armed populace could guarantee a military dictatorship would not arise.  The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, was written with that in mind.  There is something buried deep in the American psyche that whispers “keep the guns cleaned and oiled”.

But your question goes deeper than that, I think.  You hear stories of mass shootings, school shootings, or murder at the mall, and you wonder why the government — someone — doesn’t do something.  You hold this view because you believe government’s primary duty is to protect the citizenry.  That’s wrong, at least in America’s case.  Our government’s primary duty is to protect the rights of the people.  We the people have the responsibility to protect ourselves, an easy task when our rights are ensured.  In fact, those horrible incidents the media most often trumpet happen when and where our rights have been subverted.  School zones, for one example, are places where one’s right to keep and bear arms is forbidden.  When a lunatic searches for a place full of unarmed victims, ‘school’ is often their first thought.  Of the last 60 mass-shooting incidents, 59 occurred in gun-free zones.  The lone exception was the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a parking lot.  Oddly, almost all the shooters in these cases were people with Democratic or ‘progressive’ or ‘leftist’ political leanings or affiliations — including the Giffords shooter — and these are the groups that are most actively campaigning for more gun control.

In fact, what I call ‘the 2nd amendment community’ (hereafter ‘2AC’) — that group of people who lawfully own and lawfully use guns and who favor the ability of peaceful people to arm themselves with their firearm of choice — are confused over the efforts — primarily from the left, the anti-2AC — to restrict the 2nd amendment.  To the 2AC, it appears the anti-2AC are focusing on the wrong demographic.  There are lawful gun uses and there are unlawful gun uses but the anti-2AC treat both as if they are undifferentiated.  That view is nonsensical, but it’s what most of the headlines are based on.

I like to point out to people that only two states, Texas and Florida, keep statistics on whether or not this arrestee has a concealed weapons permit (hereafter ‘CWP’).  The pictures from both states are remarkably similar: while we expect police to be law-abiding, those who have CWPs are more law-abiding than are the police!  They are (depending on which year you examine) 7-to-13 times less likely to be arrested for anything than is the general populace.  That is, they are 6%-13% as likely to have an unpleasant interaction with police as you are, and you know how often you get arrested!  Would we see the same picture from other states?  It seems very likely given the dissimilarity of the two we have as examples, so treating the 2AC as if they were all criminals makes no sense, yet what do we see again and again?  Ban this weapon (as if criminals will turn them all in!).  Register these weapons (ditto).  Background checks for every sale or transfer (ditto).  Every new suggestion for ‘common sense gun control’ is aimed directly at the people who are not the problem.  That’s neither common sense nor reasonable.

So, what we have is an American nation awash with firepower (over 100 million Americans are thought to own more than 350 million firearms and 200 billion rounds of ammunition — such numbers are necessarily imprecise) but almost all our ‘gun violence’ happens in a few enclaves where drugs are a problem.  No reasonable person can look at this picture and believe that ‘guns’ are as big a problem as are the drugs.  Were we to immediately end the foolish War On Drugs, violent crime would plummet even harder than it has been for the last thirty years.

Oh, yes, perhaps you weren’t aware — crime in the United States has been on a nearly-uninterrupted downslide since the 1980s while state after state has been relaxing restrictions on firearms-for-the-law-abiding!  America isn’t getting more dangerous, it’s getting safer as more and more people arm themselves.  Newspapers and TV stations are just getting better at finding and reporting shocking news.

One factoid often reported is that about 30,000 people die from gunshot each year.  What is not reported in the mainstream media is that 60% of these deaths are suicides and are unlikely to be much affected by the presence or absence of this means or that; ‘guns’ here are a non-issue.  Of the remaining 12,000, about 5,000 are justifiable homicides where the victim was engaged in criminal activity at the time of death.  7,000 criminal deaths from a population of 310 million is a very small fraction (2 per 100,000), but if it bleeds, it leads.  These 7,000 deaths are what the anti-2AC and mainstream media focus on.

Since 1987 when Florida began the current easing of restrictions, crime in the United States has been disappearing (no, really!).  In 1987, Florida became a “shall issue” state.  Any person who applied for a CWP and who could not categorically be determined to be a danger to the community was issued the permit.  At that time, only Vermont and Montana had looser laws: Vermont allowed anyone to carry (concealed) a firearm “for any lawful purpose”; Montana placed an age limit of 14 on that practice.  Since that time, all but five states have become either “shall issue” or “Vermont carry”.   Oddly enough, many of the most dangerous places in the country are found in “may issue” or “no issue” states or in states that have only recently (generally after being forced by the courts) become “shall issue”: New York, California, Illinois;  or that are “home rule” cities like Philadelphia or Washington DC.  Correlation may not be causality, but something is clearly going on here.

In the 90s during the Clinton Presidency, a team of researchers from Florida State University set out to discover how dangerous it was for ordinary people to be allowed firearms.  Kleck and Kurtz did a rough survey via telephone to ascertain how rarely firearms were used for good.  What they found shocked them: their results hinted that there might be as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year.  This number absolutely dwarfs the criminal uses of guns.  Because of that, the survey was widely discounted as flawed.  To correct it, the US Department of Justice commissioned its own counter-survey.  Their conclusion was that DGUs probably did not exceed 800,000 per year.  This number still dwarfs criminal usage.  Later, David Hemmenway of Harvard repeated the DOJ survey, this time excluding every incident that could not be proven to have saved a life, and got the number down to 80,000 DGUs.  Since only about 7,000 people die from criminal gun use in the US each year, even this number was unsatisfactory to the anti-2AC, but there it is.

There’s only one conclusion that may be drawn from the foregoing: America is not a dangerous place and Americans are not a dangerous people.  The first corollary is that trying to disarm the American populace at large is not simply unnecessary, but is probably counter-productive.  The second corollary may well be that every American should be armed.

“An armed society is a polite society.” —— Robert Heinlein

Could this also be true elsewhere?  Switzerland is an enlightening example.  Every Swiss trains in their military and is issued, as part of their training, a rifle.  The typical arm issued is comparable to the standard issue for most modern militaries, and can operate as a machine gun.  It is worth a short detour to explain the difference between ‘automatic’ and ‘semi-automatic’:

 

Both auto and semi-auto arms are classified as ‘self-loaders’ or ‘autoloaders’.  When the trigger is activated, a round is fired, the mechanism extracts the empty brass, ejects it, resets the firing pin, and reloads another round from the magazine, making the firearm ready to fire again.  For semi-autos, this is the end of the process;  the trigger must be released and pulled again to fire the next round.  Autos (or ‘full-autos’) will continue to fire round after round while the trigger is held or until the magazine is empty.  They are sometimes thought of as machine guns.

Fully-automatic firearms are extremely rare among civilian populations in the Western world, very expensive, and heavily restricted.  No full-auto firearms manufactured after May 1986 are owned by civilians in the US.  While some guns are casually designated ‘auto’ (“.45 Automatic”), they are properly referred to as ‘semi-auto’.

Most military weapons are classed as ‘select fire’.  This means that they can change from semi-auto to auto or back at the flip of a switch.

Since 1934, there have been only two crimes committed in the U.S. with legally owned full-auto weapons.  In both cases, the perpetrators were police officers.

 

In the US, the anti-2AC obsesses over the proliferation of semi-auto AR-15s.  The Swiss, at the end of their military service, are sent home with their issued, select-fire rifles which they keep at home along with a small supply of ammunition.  They keep a machine gun handy in case war breaks out, which hasn’t happened since 1391.  The Swiss have an enviably-low violent crime rate.

Guns are not the problem.  They can’t be.  If they were, the Swiss would be extinct.

 

Every now and then, some anti-2AC will propose the repeal of the 2nd amendment.  The 2AC used to fly into a panic over this but lately they pay no attention to the rantings.  They seem to understand that repealing the 2nd will have no effect even if it’s possible to find the votes to do so — something which presently appears unlikely.

Every year, something like 15 million Americans get hunting licenses, dress in camouflage clothing, load their high-powered scoped rifles and stealthily stalk animals, mostly deer, and kill them with single shots at hundreds of yards’ distance.  That’s what snipers do.  We have 15 million mostly-civilian snipers.  ’15 million’ is a number larger than the five largest armies in the world — combined.  These are the people the anti-2AC want to disarm.  If the idea weren’t so insane, it might even be funny.

Making it even more ludicrous is the fact that disarming that population will have to be carried out by armed men most of whom are, themselves, members of the 2AC.  The panic of yesteryear has been replaced by a somewhat grudging admiration of the impressive anti-2AC capacity for self-delusion.

We are not amused.

Austria is now contemplating adding “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” to their constitution.  The influx of many mostly-Islamic refugees has brought with it a huge jump in violent crime and many Austrians are discovering the benefits of being able to defend oneself at the moment a violent crime happens rather than waiting to file a police report after the fact.  What makes this notable is that the Austrian constitution will grant a right.  Americans consider rights to originate from God or nature or whichever metaphysical entity least offends one’s sensibilities, rather than originating from governments or constitutions — “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”.  If the Austrians press onward with this, they will come into conflict with the European Union that, as a matter of policy, opposes civilian ownership of the means of self-defense.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the shadow of Brexit and the impending exit of several others.

 

Having a rational conversation on the topic of ‘guns’ with an anti-2AC is nearly impossible because virtually everything they think they know about guns is wrong.  Some of their beliefs:

• anyone can order a machine gun via mail-order
• guns at home are more dangerous to the family than anyone else
• criminals will be deterred by another law
• people all across the country own “weapons of war”
• guns can be sold at gun shows without background checks
• guns can be bought on the internet without background checks
• guns can be shipped to any address
• no civilian has any lawful need of a 30-round magazine
• hunting and target shooting are the only reasons for having a gun
• all you ‘gun nuts’ are paranoid
• you think your gun makes you Dirty Harry
• we would all be safer if only the police and military had guns.

Most of these are demonstrably wrong;  some are just illogical nonsense;  all of them are tenets of the faith, believed because it is necessary that they be believed.  We ‘gun nuts’ often try to treat the anti-2AC as if they are rational beings capable of absorbing truth, capable of accepting proof and abandoning their belief in fantasy.  In most cases, it simply doesn’t work that way.  Whether they think the 2AC is lying to them or whether it is just too painful to give up their fantasies or whether it is merely impossible for them to abandon such deeply-held notions, in all but the most unusual cases, they will simply tune out any and all opposing views no matter how firmly backed by fact.  So-called ‘researchers’, some in residence at prestigious universities, produce studies and papers purporting to show by statistical evidence that pro-gun opinions are manifestly cuckoo.  One of the most notorious of these was Michael Bellesiles’ ‘Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture’ published out of Emory University.  Bellesiles supposedly examined court documents of colonial and post-colonial America to demonstrate that private possession of firearms was rare-to-nonexistent as evidenced by their conspicuous absence from probate records.  It won several prestigious awards for scholarship and hit the New York Times’ bestseller list before other researchers attempted to recreate his evidence and failed.  For his part, Bellesiles claimed his notes had been destroyed by a flood and thus couldn’t be produced for verification.  When one researcher discovered Bellesiles had cited records from before the time such records could have existed, the whole story fell apart.  Bellesiles had fabricated the bulk of his ‘research’.  The awards he had received were revoked and he was terminated from employment at Emory.  Sadly, ‘Arming America’ can still be found on many library shelves in the non-fiction area.

The best arguments the anti-2AC can produce are generally 'fiction'.

 

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

 

The Orlando shooting has prompted the usual calls for more restrictions that wouldn't have helped had they been in place ten years ago.  Reinstate the assault weapons ban!  The 1994 ban didn't prohibit possession, just manufacture and retail sale.  Missing from all the hype is the fact that, in Florida, it is a potential felony to have a firearm at an establishment whose primary revenue is from alcohol sales — as the Pulse nightclub's was.  Got it?  Nobody at that place was legally armed.  Nobody at that place could legally defend themselves.  They were all sitting ducks.  The shooter's choice of weapon was immaterial.

Also missing from the reports was that the shooter was a registered Democrat.  It wasn't possible to hide that the shooter was an adherent of Islam.

I ask people: "what law, had it been in place ten years ago, would have prevented that shooting?", and almost no one is willing to venture an answer — because the answer is so politically incorrect that the words will not escape the lips of anyone calling for an end to "gun violence". 

Here's the answer:  If, ten years ago, we had declared Islam to be not a religion, but simply an ideology, and one incompatible with the dictates of the American system, we would have already deported or otherwise minimalized the ill-effects of Islam in our country.  We did it for communists.  We did it for anarchists.  Why not terrorists?

But, no.  The unthinking would simply rather trot out some statistics to shame us with the knowledge that America is such a violent place and Americans are such violent people.  I say 'unthinking' because such people throw statistics about criminal usage of guns before us and then try to convince us that all gun usage is criminal.  Stated that way, it's obviously a bogus argument.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, studies conducted by the US Dept of Justice during the Clinton years suggest that in the absence of a legally armed populace, America would look more like an abattoir.  The DOJ found that there were more lawful uses of firearms than unlawful uses by a factor of 27.  That's right; for every person criminally killed with a gun, 27 crimes of violence were prevented — by a lawfully armed citizen.

God forbid the gun grabbers get what they want.  If you want to see what happens if they do, rent a copy of "Children Of Men" and be afraid; be very afraid.

 

Friends, Liberals. Gungrabbers...

 

It will come as a shock to some of my readers, but I promise that it is true: among my friends, I count several liberals (in the modern sense) and several of what are commonly referred to as "gun grabbers", anti-second-amendment types.  As you might suspect, there is considerable overlap between those two categories.

Recently, I crossed swords with one of them (both categories, naturally) over the issue of 'how easy it is to buy a gun over the Internet'.  Many of you will already be chuckling at such naïveté, but what a golden opportunity to increase others' level of awareness.  I am unable to resist.

Eloise is in the business of selling guns.  She has a store in Palatka, Florida.  She also appears at several local gun shows and she has a website on which she advertises guns for sale.  When someone buys a gun at her Palatka store, Eloise must (by federal law) have that person fill out an ATF Form 4473 and pass a background check.  When someone buys a gun from Eloise at a gun show, Eloise must (by federal law) have that person fill out an ATF Form 4473 and pass a background check.  When someone buys a gun from Eloise over the Internet, Eloise must (by federal law) have that person fill out an ATF Form 4473 and pass a background check.  As a matter of fact, there is no circumstance under which Eloise, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) will not have a buyer fill out an ATF Form 4473 and pass a background check before that buyer takes possession of a firearm from her.  Eloise doesn't want to go to prison.

George is a stockbroker living in Ocala, Florida.  He also has several guns.  When George decided to sell all his revolvers and go strictly semi-auto, he advertised on a website known for faciitating sales and trades of firearms.  The S&W .38 Special he gave to his niece was not included.  His niece did not fill out a Form 4473, nor did she have a background check.  The Colt Python .357 Magnum George sold to his neighbor also did not result in a Form 4473 or a completed background check.  George hoped no one would make him a decent offer on his Colt Model 1873 Single Action Army in .45 Long Colt, but when a buyer from Key West offered him $8,400 for it, he buckled.  That buyer didn't want to drive all the way to Ocala to pick it up, so George's regular dealer shipped it to Griswold's Custom Firearms in Marathon where George's buyer filled out a Form 4473, passed a background check, and paid an additional $35 fee to Griswold's when he picked it up there.  A similar scenario played out for George's .44 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk when he sold it to a buyer in Wyoming.  A tourist from Texas visiting locally made George a generous offer for another of George's guns, but George knew he couldn't legally sell a firearm in Florida to someone who didn't also live in Florida.  Like Eloise, George also didn't want to go to prison.

Greg lives in Oviedo, Florida.  The guns in his collection are very special.  Greg owns a 1929 Thompson submachinegun (the 'Chicago typewriter'), two WW-II-era M3A1s ('grease guns'), a 3.75" rocket launcher (bazooka), a German Panzerfaust anti-tank rocket launcher, four StG44s (the original assault rifle), a full-automatic AK-47, and a Finnish Lahti 20mm anti-tank cannon.  Of course, he has ammunition for all of these.  His basement is a vault.  At this point, he estimates his collection to be worth around a million dollars.  He doesn't sell; he buys, and every time he does, it takes 6 months for BATFE to finish all the paperwork approving the new addition to the collection.  Every few years or so, someone from BATFE rings his doorbell and personally examines each and every piece of his collection and each and every piece of documentation regarding each and every piece of his collection — a marvelous waste of taxpayer money, but, hey, there's more where that came from, right?  Greg is considered a 'Class III dealer' even though he has never sold a single firearm — ever.

Can everyone see the pattern?  Guns not covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act can be sold person-to-person without a background check as long as neither of those persons hold a federal license to deal in firearms and as long as both of those persons reside in the same state, and are in that state at the time of the sale.  In every other case — every other case — a Form 4473 (or in Greg's case, a Form 3) will be filled out and filed, and a background check will be done.  Every other case.

The notion — widely held among those who don't actually know the law — is that anyone can go on the Internet, find a machinegun for sale, buy it, and have it shipped to their door, no paperwork, no BGC, no nothing.  Failing that, they can just visit the nearest gun show and walk out with a crate of hand grenades, no questions asked.

Don't listen to such people.  They have no idea what they're talking about.

 

Obama's "answer" to the problem (sic) of guns

 

I put 'answer' in quotes because what the President announced today really answers nothing.  There is this weird meme floating about that gun shows are some sort of magical land where all the rules are different and those who believe this think Obama has done something to change it back to reality.  He didn't, largely because gun shows operate just like the rest of the real world.

If someone buys a gun from someone who is not a federal firearms licensee (FFL), there is no requirement to perform a BGC as long as both of those people are residents of the same state and are IN that state at time of sale.  In all other cases, a BGC is required by federal law.  ALL other cases, period.  At a store, in a garage, behind the cathedral at dawn, or at a gun show; it doesn't matter where, and it doesn't matter when.  Virtually NO ONE who sets up a (gun sales) table at a gun show is NOT a FFL.  Now for the logic problem:  what percentage of gun sales at a gun show will NOT be accompanied by a BGC?  Answer:  virtually none.

It is possible that Jed will walk the aisles with a cardboard sign around his neck saying "Colt .44 Magnum; make offer" and it is possible that someone will make him an offer that he accepts, and a gun will be sold without a BGC.  This will happen rarely, and what Obama announced today will not stop it because he didn't do what many in the Second Amendment Community suspected he might:  declare that everyone who sells a gun is automatically "a dealer".  Why didn't he do that?

Back in the 80s and 90s it was fairly easy to become a FFL.  File the paperwork, pay a nominal fee, suffer a BGC that's somewhat more elaborate than the BGC for buying a gun or getting a concealed weapons license (CWL).  Presto, change-o, you're a dealer.  You can now buy at wholesale but you have to keep meticulous records of what you buy, what you sell, and from whom and to whom.  All your sales then require a BGC and a 4473 which ATF must (by law) process and destroy in 72 hours.  You keep your copies of the 4473s for 20 years before you can destroy them.

Damn, that sounds like the kind of Action Demanded by those Moms, doesn't it?  Yes and no.  They would take exception to the 'proliferation of gun dealers operating out of garages and living rooms', and that is why, in the 90s, Bill Clinton directed ATF to clamp down on 'kitchen table dealers'.  If you didn't have a real place-of-business and only made occasional sales and purchases, they said, you're not a real dealer and just revoked your FFL.  It would be difficult for Obama to have to admit that Bill Clinton screwed up, even if he did.

ATF (short for 'Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives') now considers a person 'a dealer' if they regularly buy and sell firearms and make a profit doing so, even if they don't have a real place-of-business, so Obama announcing that from now on ATF will require such persons to register as dealers is nothing more than declaring — to the blare of trumpets — that current policy will henceforth be enforced as current policy.  In short, it's all hot air.

Outside of the Second Amendment Community, none of this is common knowledge, so all those Obama cheerleaders will be confident that their man in DC has just struck a blow for common sense.  I think it would be cruel to spoil their euphoria, don't you?  So let's just not mention to them that nothing happened today, okay?

 

Heretofore Otherwise Law-Abiding Gun Owners

 

I use that rather longish phrase to introduce a contra-intuitive notion:  the people we always thought of as 'most likely to obey the law' have changed their attitudes, their positions relative to the law, and their willingness to be bullied.

In times past, legislators could pass laws and be relatively certain that the bulk of the population would honor the law with their obedience even as the criminal element took the opposite tack.  It appears that is no longer the case.  It appears now that — at least as far as gun control laws are concerned — the overwhelming response is not obedience but defiance.

The State of Connecticut, reacting to the Sandy Hook incident, passed a severe assault weapon registration law.  It forbade the sale or possession of AR-15-type and AK-47-type rifles except for grandfathered units properly registered by the deadline for registration, January 1st, 2014.  Also included in the ban/grandfathering were so-called 'high capacity' magazines, those holding more than ten (10) rounds.  Banned units that were not going to be registered had to be surrendered to police for destruction or moved out of state.  CT State Police estimated 370,000 rifles were subject to the ban along with 4 million magazines.

As of the deadline for registration, ConnStaPo had received about 47,000 registrations for rifles and about 38,000 registrations for magazines.  That is, 13% of the firearms and 1% of the magazines.  Unless the original estimates were badly out-of-whack, Nutmeggers have decided they'd rather be felons than register their hardware.  The heretofore-otherwise-law-abiding have become law-breakers.

The following year, New York did the same thing, passing the NYSAFE Act in the dead of night over the objections of elected officials who demanded the legislature follow its own rules and give New Yorkers adequate notice of impending legislation.  They needn't have worried.  Barely 10% of New Yorkers have registered their firearms, the other 90% having decided, it seems, to be criminals themselves.

In Oregon, ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg poured a truckload of money into a ballot measure demanding background checks for all transfers (not just sales) of firearms.  That is, I'm at the range sighting in my newest hunting rifle and the girl next to me says "Nice rifle.  Mind if I try it?"  As soon as I hand it to her, we have both become criminals because no BGC was done for the 'transfer'.

Two months after that became law, the Washington State Gun Collectors' Assn held a widely-advertised 'no BGC gun show' at which — observed by police standing close by — several thousand blatant, in-plain-sight violations of the law resulted in zero arrests.

This is a very bad sign — for governments.  The surety in legislators' minds that all they had to do was vote in order to see their decisions carried out — that surety is gone, and it won't easily be regained.  In the meantime, sheriffs in those states are refusing to arrest citizens for failing to register, and the state police organizations are too understaffed to be of much use in enforcing the diktats.  The status quo is that these laws might as well not have been passed for all the effect they've had.

Viewed from another angle, the picture doesn't even look that rosy:  when you have citizens who have always in the past been the strongest supporters of 'law and order' now lining up in opposition to it — because they see it as the perfect antithesis of law and order — it has to make a legislator wonder what response the next law will get.  How long before the peasants, armed with pitchforks and torches, storm the castle looking for a head to chop off?

And it was all so unnecessary.  It is estimated that 100 million American gun owners have 350 million guns and 200 billion rounds of ammunition.  If those American gun owners were a real problem — if they were a problem worth attacking — there wouldn't be just dozens dead at this school or that post office.  There would be thousands dead every week in paroxysms of slaughter that would reduce us to third-world-status in a trice.  That hasn't happened, and a thinking person must wonder why it hasn't if all those bitter clingers are as dangerous as the New York Times seems to think they are.

The answer must be — because it can be naught else — that your average heretofore otherwise law-abiding American gun owner isn't someone to fear.

Yet.

You can, of course, change that whenever the spirit moves you.

 

Campus Carry

 

The big issue on Florida college campuses these days is the impending possibility that people who can lawfully carry a concealed firearm elsewhere in Florida may soon be permitted(†) to do so at Florida colleges.  Horrors!

That is: those who are 21 or over (we're talking seniors or grad students, generally), who have had an extensive background check both by FDLE and FBI, whose fingerprints are on file in Tallahassee, and who have demonstrated reasonable proficiency with a firearm, may do on a college campus that which they can do almost everywhere else in the state, viz.: be inconspicuously armed.  Students, faculty, and administrators are suffering a case of the vapours at the mere thought that, should a Virginia Tech incident or a Strozier Library incident occur in their school, there will be even more guns making loud noises.  At least, that's what I believe they're thinking(‡).

Now, it turns out that only two states, Texas and Florida, compile statistics on "how many crimes are committed by people who have concealed weapons permits (CWPs)".  The numbers are truly puzzling if one accepts the dominant meme that all CWP-holders are Dirty Harry wannabees looking for any excuse to whip out their penis-substitute and start rendering swift justice — you know, like George Zimmerman.  The numbers Texas and Florida supply suggest that CWP-holders are more law-abiding than the police as a class.  Not only that, it appears they are less likely to shoot the wrong person than the police are — by a factor of five (5).

On net, then, for those really worried about their safety, the most logical course of action is to hope that they're seated next to one of those... those... people (ugh!) with their nasty guns (shiver!) because — oddly enough — that's likely the safest place in the room or the building or (perhaps) the school.  Far from making the college a riskier place, those CWP-holders will actually make it a safer place.

 

(†)  By 'permitted', I mean that they will no longer be under threat of felony prosecution for the action.

(‡)  ...if, in fact, thinking has actually occurred, something for which there appears to be little or no evidence.

 

First, Charlie Hebdo, now...

 

Well, it's been a few days since the terrorist attacks in Paris.   The dust has mostly settled and speculation has tapered off.   We're pretty sure what we know or suspect is, in fact, true:   ISIS has claimed responsibility and there is little reason to doubt their veracity, in this case at any rate.

The French — indeed, all of Western Europe — are shocked — shocked, I tell you — that terrorists can so easily obtain better, more deadly, weapons than the Paris gendarmerie typically tote.   The ordinary Jacques-sur-la-Rue, I might add, is a criminal for carrying almost anything that might be called 'a weapon'.

I could rant on and on for paragraphs about how important it is for ordinary people to be able to be their own first responders and how that requires that they be able to act — forcefully — in their own defense.   You've just heard all the ranting I'm going to do, except...  

I do wish to point out something L. Neil Smith has already expounded:   'terrorism' is a diffuse problem and it will not succumb to a targeted solution;   only a diffuse solution will fit a diffuse problem.   What this means, on net, is that we cannot expect the police, the FBI (or, in France, DCPJ), or the NSA to always be on top of the situation.   Yes, they will thwart the occasional plot, but not every one.   The only thing that will put a bullet into the nefarious plans of terrorists is the thought that Jacques Bonhomme will put a bullet into one or more terrorists.

I am pretty sure France will not take my advice.   Too bad, but I've done my part.

 

Revolt of the Nutmeggers

 

For those of you who do not follow Mike Vanderboegh's Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, there are big doings in Connecticut, the Constitution State.

Last April, in response to the prior December's horrendous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the Connecticut legislature passed a knee-jerk law requiring all "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" to be registered with the state by the start of 2014.  (I put "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" in quotes to emphasize that these are phoney-baloney made up terms used merely to demonize equipment in wide and lawful use by very many upstanding citizens throughout the country.)

When passed, those in the know in CT estimated upwards of 370,000 assault weapons and as many as four million (4,000,000) magazines were then in the hands of an unknown number of Nutmeggers.  Well, the deadline for registering all that nasty equipment has passed and fewer than 50,000 rifles and fewer than 40,000 magazines have been registered.  That is, <15% of the guns and <1% of the magazines.  Yes, ONE percent.

It gets worse.  Pro-gun organizations in CT as well as elsewhere have bluntly stated their resolve to touch off another revolution if the state tries to confiscate any of the unregistered firearms.  Given the realities on the ground, the Connecticut State Police have the upper hand only for the first one or two such confiscations, after which an all-out war is not outside the envelope of possibility.  CT legislators have had their home addresses posted online and reacted by demanding personal state-paid security details to forestall assassination attempts.

Connecticut Carry, one such organization promoting concealed- and open-carry for CT, issued a press release giving the legislature until May 7th to repeal the intolerable act saying "shit or get off the pot" (yes, that is a quote from the presser) meaning "repeal or enforce, take your pick".

Stay tuned.  This could get interesting.

 

Thoughts for Bill Of Rights Day, December 15th, 2013

 

Today, December 15th, is "Bill Of Rights Day", commemorating the date in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified.  Oddly, this commemorative day was first proclaimed on its 150th anniversary in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt who, only second behind Abraham Lincoln, did the most to destroy the Bill of Rights.

The name "Bill of Rights" is itself something of a misnomer.  The Bill of Rights grants us no rights;  they merely codify and protect pre-existing rights:  "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", "...shall not be violated".  They are all prohibitions on actions the government might attempt.  The BoR simply says "thou shalt not".

Note, also, something else about those "rights" (actually, "those prohibitions"):  nowhere do any of them say "citizen", as in "the right of citizens shall not...".  The government is being told "don't do this to anybody", presumably even if they're French...  or Iraqi, even.  Given some of our Supreme Court's recent decisions relating to Guantanamo Bay, it appears those "learned justices" haven't actually read the thing they claim the authority to interpret.  (Not exactly a surprise, I know.)

It's said, and probably 'truthfully', that you can only have rights you are willing to demand.  When the police officer asks "Do you mind if I look around your car?" most of us, knowing our own innocence, respond "Sure, why not?"  If the police officer didn't need to ask, he wouldn't have.  This is your clue to decline the search (others by extension).

It is also said, absolutely truthfully, that you can only have those rights you're willing to let anyone exercise.  As soon as you say "I believe in the right to (here fill in a sample right), but..." you've lost it.  If you admit to circumstances where a right can be foreshortened, you've just burned the right down to the ground.  "IBITR of free speech but... you can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater."  Oops.  What do you shout when the theater is on fire?  "Free popcorn!" doesn't have quite the sense of urgency called for here.  The prohibition on causing panic in the theater is actually a prohibition on lying.  You can speak the truth freely;  you can't slander.  You can keep and bear arms;  you can't murder.  You have the right to do things you should; you never had a right to do things you shouldn't.  More precisely, you don't have any rights to harm others.  Seems somewhat "Golden Rule-ish", no?  Don't do things you wouldn't want others doing to you.  Makes sense to me.

 

In line with that and with yesterday's commemoration still firmly in mind, today is also "Guns Save Lives Day".

Some background:  back oh... twenty-five years or so ago, someone did a survey to find out how often honest, peaceable folk saved themselves from victimhood because they had a gun.  It wasn't a very rigorous study, so when the figure "2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) per year" was announced, everyone snickered.  Ridiculous!

The Clinton-era Justice Department did their own study, this one a little more rigidly controlled.  Their number was 800,000 DGU.

Even this number was too unbelevably high for some people, so a(n anti-gun) Harvard researcher by the name of Hemmenway did his own study, eliminating every instance that might be even-a-little-bit suspect.  Hemmenway eliminated every case where it wasn't certain that a life in danger had been saved.  Hemmenway's number was 80,000 DGU, and even Hemmenway wasn't happy.  When he compared his own pared-to-the-bone number against the 30,000 annual unlawful gun deaths (40% of which are suicides), even he had to admit that it was likely — verging on 'extremely likely' — that guns in the hands of law-abiding folk prevented more deaths than guns in the hands of criminals took — by a factor of 2.7 .

If you're not so anti-gun that you're willing to accept the anti-gun Clinton-era DOJ estimate, then for every person criminally killed each year, 27 violent crimes are prevented, in almost every case without a shot being fired:  "Get lost.  I have a gun and I'll use it."  Problem solved.  2,291 times a day.

The implications of this are important.  Some organizations (Moms Demand Action, Committee to Stop Gun Violence, etc.) would like to see us all disarmed, claiming that this would solve our national crime problem.  That DOJ study, and to a lesser extent the Hemmenway survey, say otherwise.  They say our national crime problem would be horrendous without all those guns in the hands of good people.  What sort of moron would want that?  What sort of evil ghoul would want that?  Not you, certainly.

Happy Bill-Of-Rights Day.  Guns Save Lives.