As others have noted Michael Bane has announced he and his film crew will be attending Boomershoot 2010. I've known about it since mid-October when he sent me an email that said, in part:

I want to give you a heads up...I would like to film Boomershoot 2010, if it works for you. It would either be for my flagship, SHOOTING GALLERY, or for a new show I have in the works under the working title of AMERICA SHOOTS! You'd rather have it be AMERICA SHOOTS! because it will be hosted by the hysterically funny an spectacularly beautiful Katie Rowe, a professional stuntwoman and obsessive shooter.

Again, if it works for you, I'd like to put together some live coverage on DOWN RANGE (www.downrange.tv).

I held back on announcing it because I wanted to the plans to be a little more firm.

I don't know his exact schedule yet but I'm hoping he will cover the target making on Saturday too.

I've had an 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver for a while, but was never able to get decent accuracy from it.  Maybe it was the wrong grip fit for my hands.  Maybe it was the extra weight and maybe it was the very long creep in the trigger.  Don't know, but it had been sitting for a long time, such that the grease was getting stiff, so I took it out alone for some exercise yesterday.

I'd been experimenting with bird shot loads in handguns because I'm interested in handgun trap shooting.  Turns out the rifling pretty well renders that a losing proposition (I could get a spare barrel for the 1851 Colt repro, and ream out the rifling. we'll see).  Anyway, I ended up with a selection of fiber wads and cards for the .44 Remington, and since my current charge of 28 grains 3F Goex takes up little room in the chambers, and since everyone says the projectile should be close to the forcing cone for best accuracy, I added a quarter inch fiber wad on top of the powder, with a felt wad on top of that.

Now the revolver shoots OK.  Don't know if it was the extra spacing, or that I'd been handling the gun a lot more, but I was able to match my long standing 25 yard grouping (previously held by the 1851 Colt) several times that day, with this gun.  It may not be anything to brag about, but it's better than I've done with any automatic so far.  That's 25 yards, standing, two hands, unsupported.  I'm sure there are people who can do a whole lot better, but as the saying goes, "This is my group. There are many like it, but this one is mine."

That's the way it went several times-- four shots in a decent group, with one flier.  It didn't matter whether the group was fired from one cylinder, the other cylinder, or a combination of the two.  I shot a smaller group that day, but this one gives me hope that those four in the middle better represent the gun's potential.

There was zero wind that day, such that when I was all done, there was a layer of white smoke that covered the whole 5 to 7 acre range.  Cool.  It also means that you have to learn to aim through a cloud of smoke.

Several shooter have written about this other phenomenon; I found myself contentedly driving under the speed limit on the way home, which is something I practically never do.  I'm usually irritated by people who drive under the limit, the lot of serene bastards.  It seems that shooting can have a pronounced relaxing effect that can last for several hours after the fact.

Still trying to persuade Starbucks into banning people exercising the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign made a blog post on the topic today (the same post is here as well). As is usual he choses his words carefully when he says things like:

Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location. In addition, 80 percent of those who don’t own guns say they would feel less safe if more people in their community acquired guns; only eight percent would feel safer. Even among gun owners, roughly equal proportions would feel less safe if more people had guns versus those who would feel more safe.

There are three things to make note of here.

1. He says "the more gun violence there is".
2. The study he cites was published in 2001.
3. The emphasis on feelings.

As is usual Brady supporters seem to only concern themselves with criminal violence rates if a gun was involved. Total criminal violence rates are used by gun rights supporters because we care about people that are injured by criminals no matter the method. When using total crime rates even Brady Campaign staff acknowledge, at best, it is difficult to show more guns means more crime.

In regards to the second item that study is old. When the CDC did their study of dozens of papers in 2002, one year after the study cited by Helmke was published, they concluded, "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." Essentially the same conclusion as Helmke's co-worker acknowledges.

By choosing his words carefully Helmke misleads his readers in an attempt to further his agenda to justify his abnormal fear of gun owners lawfully exercising their rights.

If feelings were adequate reasons to exclude people exercising their rights from coffee shops and restaurants we would still have a multitude of Jim Crow laws on the books.

It is clear he doesn't acknowledge or respect those rights. From that same post notice that he says:

Welcome to the “open carry” movement, an effort by “gun rights” extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places.  While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the “open carry” of firearms.

Did you notice that he puts "gun rights" are in quotes? Apparently in their minds they are still fighting the battle they lost with the Heller decision.

He acknowledges these people are not breaking any laws but that's not good enough for him. I suspect he knows the open carry of firearms was clearly recognized as a fundamental right at the time of the writing of our Bill of Rights. Concealed carry was considered suspect and over time became banned in many locales. But the open carry of weapons, as demonstrated by the near universal lack of laws against it, has always been recognized as a fundamental right. I believe the Brady's are desperate to slow down and/or kill the open carry movement because they know they will loose that battle in the courts. And ultimately open carry will normalize the right to keep and bear arms.

As I said earlier today, respect isn't really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And the Brady's will use half truths and any other deception needed in their futile attempt to remain relevant in a world where their tactics no longer work. It's time for Helmke and friends to acknowledge the facts and get some counseling for their inappropriate feelings. The world has changed and in todays world they are just as backward as George Wallace in 1970 and just as despicable in their tactics as when Wallace ran ads that showing a white girl surrounded by seven black boys, with the slogan "Wake Up Alabama! Blacks vow to take over Alabama".

There have been some questions as to the origins of the anti-gun people as bigots meme. There have been occasions when I have been given credit for starting it. While I may be the most outspoken blogger of this I cannot claim credit for being the first to make this observation.

The Brady Campaign people seem to think it was the NRA:

In fact, the notion of “bigotry” is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire.

This is particularily amusing since they link to the Ammoland website while saying "National Rifle Association". Say Uncle pokes fun at them for this better than I can.

In the comments MikeB302000 also suspects the NRA is behind it.

A Bing search of the NRA and NRA-ILA websites only shows one instance of the term bigot being used (a Google search resulting in zero hits). This was on January 18, 2008.

My somewhat limited research shows that it goes back as far as 1994 with the following speech by Don Kates in Sacramento:

From: MWUEST@alhrg.wpafb.af.mil (System Manager Wuest)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Speech by Don Kates
Date: 3 Aug 1994 10:10:00 -0500

(Text of a speech by Don B. Kates, renouned criminoligist at the Sacramento rally, 2 JUL 1994 MEW).

In this speech I am going to set out unfamiliar concepts and facts. I shall explain and defend the concepts and I entreat anyone who wants citations for the facts to ask for them.

BIGOTRY

The first of my unfamiliar concepts is that the gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry and the effort of an influence group to force its morality on everyone by having it adopted as state and federal law. To see this it is necessary only to review some unfamiliar facts: the average gun owner is better educated and has a better job than non-owners; attitude surveys find gun owners neither racist nor sexist; liberals are only somewhat less likely than others to own firearms; liberals who do are no less willing to use them to defend their families; the only violence gun owners endorse is willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. Gun owners do not approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc. Also, good Samaritans who actually come to the aid of crime victims are twice as likely to be gun owners as the general populace.

Though these facts have been uniformly established by numerous sociological studies, they will doubtless surprise you almost as much as they would the anti-gun movement and the media. After all the former (which is actually a gun BAN movement), with the enthusiastic aid of the media, have succeeded in stereotyping gun owners as violence-oriented yahoos -- educationally, intellectually and morally retarded.

There is a word for people who inaccurately, unjustly ascribe negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike: that word is BIGOT.

Let me approach the matter from another direction. A couple of years ago right here in Sacramento some nuts who happened to be of some kind of Asian extraction -- I don't recall which and, of course it doesn't matter -- took a bunch of hostages in the course of a robbery and ended up shooting them. Now if I were to attribute that conduct to Asians as a group I would rightly be thought a bigot. But denouncing "gun owners" as a group and attributing such crimes to that group is commonly thought entirely appropriate.

Suppose I were to call gay leaders who oppose banning gay bath houses callous, selfish collaborators in the spreading of AIDS. The same public health leaders who support banning bath houses would nevertheless denounce such bigoted language. Yet such vituperation is commonly aimed at gun owners and gun leaders for opposing gun bans without anyone (except perhaps the targets) seeing anything wrong or even exceptional about it.

ORDINARY GUN OWNER AS MURDERER

Of course the difference is that, as we all know, owning a gun the ordinary average person puts family and friends at risk; as the Coalition Against Gun Violence puts it, most murders "are committed by law-abiding citizens who might have stayed law-abiding if they had not possessed firearms." Except that, as a criminologist I know no such thing. Criminological studies uniformly find that murderers are NOT ordinary citizens, but extreme aberrants with life records of serious crime. The typical murderer has a prior adult criminal history of six years involving at least four documented major felonies -- plus uncounted juvenile felonies. He is also a substance abuser with a history of car and/or gun accidents. Indeed, the life histories of those who cause fatal car and gun accidents resemble the life histories of murderers: in each case they tend to be young MALES with records of felony, violence against those around them, substance abuse and dangerous accidents.

In short, quoting a recent review in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY: "fewer than 1% of all guns, and fewer than 2% even of handguns will ever be used in a violent crime" and "more people are killed in swimming pool accidents than firearms accidents." In short, blaming all gun owners for the crimes and irresponsibility of a tiny, highly aberrant minority is bigotry. In addition to being criminologically false, it is a false issue, a diversion from the true basis of anti-gun sentiment.

At this point I have to draw a fundamental distinction which is, once again, unfamiliar. That is the distinction between anti-gun and pro-control. CONTROL implies what the great majority of Americans, including most gun owners, believe: that law abiding, responsible people have a right to possess arms to defend their families, but that society has a right to reasonably control arms -- and the issue is working out an accommodation between these two things.

But the so-called gun CONTROL movement is really a gun BAN movement dominated totally by people I call anti-gun. Anti-gunners see no objective need for accommodation because they do not see self-defense as a legitimate desire. Their ultimate objective is first the banning and confiscation of all handguns and then of all guns. Given the state of public opinion there is a subjective, or current, need to soft-pedal this for the present. Thus when they say that the Brady Bill and banning so-called assault rifles (i.e. rifles and shotguns designed primarily for self-defense) are "just the first steps", they go on to say, as Sarah Brady now does, "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes", and to advocate, as Handgun Control, Inc. now does, a nationwide permit requirement to own a gun under which only those desiring guns for sport qualify -- those desiring a gun for self-defense need not apply.

To understand the anti-gun view we must review the origin of the earliest anti-gun group. Founded as NCBH, it now calls itself the Coalition Against Gun Violence. It was and remains an outgrowth of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church seeking to impose on American society the Board's moral position which is that armed self-defense is immoral. The Board actually teaches that it is a woman's Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything to imperil her rapists' lives. Let me give you the citation for that: It is an article entitled "Is the Robber My Brother" (and, no, robbery may not be resisted either) by the editor of the Board's magazine ENGAGE/SOCIAL ACTION an article which appeared first there and then in a pamphlet available from the Board under the title HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Another member organization of the Coalition Against Gun Violence, the Presbyterian Church, USA advocates, federal banning and confiscation of handguns on the express ground that they are designed for self-defense. The Church's representatives emphasize that its General Assembly "has resolved, in the context of gun control, that it is against the killing of anyone, anywhere FOR ANY REASON." Among other places you will find that testimony is v. I at p. 127 of the Hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime 1986.

This epitomizes the views and goals of the anti-gun movement, including its non-religious supporters. The distinguished cultural historian Garry Wills reviles "gun fetishists", "gun nuts" as "anti-citizens", "traitors, enemies of their own patriae", who are arming "against their own neighbors." "The need that some homeowners and shopkeepers believe they have for weapons to defend themselves" represents "the worst instincts in the human character" according to the WASHINGTON POST. According to Ramsey Clark, defensive firearms ownership is barbarism, "anarchy, not order under law."

I have already quoted Sarah Brady's view that "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes" and Handgun Control's proposal for a national licensing requirement to exclude anyone who wants a gun for self-defense. An additional "step" is to have Congress pass the law HCI and the Coalition got D.C. to enact: no one may buy any kind of handgun and, while long guns are allowed, they too must be kept unloaded and disassembled so that they may never be used for self-defense. The ultimate goal, once again, is that expressed by Harvard public health professor Deborah Prothrow-Stith: she frankly avows that she "hates guns and sees no reason why anyone should ever own one."

In the few minutes which remain to me I want to discuss what is to be about done all this. One reason gun owners are in such a terrible fix is that they are politically unsophisticated. That is implicit in the fact that they are the targets of a vast campaign of bigotry. Gun owners are not politicians. They are just ordinary people wanting to go about their business. They have been ambushed and are being subjected to a systematic campaign of hatred and lies by an elite cadre of bigots who largely control the media and have disproportionate influence throughout our society. Naturally all too many gun owners react in mindless outrage. They leap to the conclusion that disarmament of the American public is being promoted by "liberals" -- it used to be "communists" -- for some sinister, ulterior reason involving making people helpless against tyranny. NONSENSE. Insofar as liberals support that -- and I must note so do many conservatives -- it is just out of hypocritical bigotry. They cannot see this because they view themselves as fighters against bigotry and so imagine that they are themselves incapable of it and of attempting to impose their morality on others through law.

And I want to briefly list other gun owner errors: First are the people who play into the media's hands by wearing camos when they make presentations against anti-gun proposals. Similar are the gun owners who take pleasure in extreme and intemperate statements -- at terrible cost to the cause in general. And then there are liars and buffoons like Linda Thompson and her "armed march on Washington." Demented is the best one can one say about an "armed march on Washington."

A particular pathology of gun owners is the idea that the bigotry will all go away if some particular lawsuit is brought or a strident manifesto screamed out. The simple fact is that the bigots are not going to go away. Gun owners are going to have to settle in to politics for the foreseeable future, smarten up, learn how to make politically sensible statements.

Most important, gun owners must learn the necessity and art of horse trading. By that I do NOT mean giving important things away in the absurd hope that it will satisfy the bigots and they will go away and leave us alone. I repeat, they will not go away regardless of what we do! I am not talking about compromises of principle. I am talking about things about which reasonable people can agree or disagree. For instance, raise the fee for a concealed carry license to $150.00 and the duration of the license to five years. Require that anyone who wants such a license show that they have the same legal knowledge and competence about shooting as a police officer -- but issue licenses as in Oregon and Florida to every responsible law abiding applicant.

The fact is that there are rational, non-bigoted people in the middle who can be compromised with. They cannot be convinced by the yahoo approach of "just say no to gun control." But, even as they are open to new control approaches and initiatives, they are also willing to recognize that old approaches may be unsound, or have unsound aspects, which need to be abandoned. We are in the pickle we are now in because the "just say no" attitude has allowed the bigots to paint us as mindless obstructionists who are blind to compassion and common sense. These people in the middle are open to arguments that many control proposals don't make sense in terms of crime control and to arguments based on the right and need to defend of self and property. The future of gun ownership will depend on whether we are willing and able to reach out to these middle people and convince them that the misnamed gun control movement is under the control of moralistic bigots.

-end-

===========================================================================
Bypassing the bias of broadcast media with the "narrowcast" function
of the telephone line's information SuperHiway!
The Paul Revere Network Multi-Line BBS (408) 947-7800, 279-0872, 947-7678
===========================================================================

What in the world is the reasoning behind this?

Authorities lifted curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions included a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person's own premises.

...

The state of emergency was declared Friday due to severe weather.

Emphasis is mine.

Via email from Rob.

We had another cancellation for Boomershoot 2010 yesterday.

I sent email to all the existing entries informing them they could swap their current position for the one opening up.

On Tuesday at 6:00 PM PST I will make the empty position available for the first person to sign up at http://entry.boomershoot.org/.

I don't know for certain which position will be open. The canceled position was #32 but if someone wants to swap that could change.

Some hints on signing up:

• Sometime several minutes before 6:00 PM on Tuesday go to the web page and put in your name, phone number and other entry details.
• Click on the button labeled "Update Price"-this sets the cookies in your browser so you don't have to reenter that information when you come back to the page or refresh it.
• A 6:00 PM go to the page and find the available position (I'll send out another email when I know for certain).
• Refresh the page repeatedly until the position button labeled "Position 32" or some such thing is not grayed out.
• Hit that button as soon as you can.

Last time I did this the first position to open up was snatched in 32 seconds. I don't expect it will take much, if any, longer this time.

I hope it doesn't reduce the attraction of Boomershoot but it was the lesbian couple that canceled due to one of them starting a new job and being unable to take time off so soon.

Update: Yes, I was trying to make a joke about the lesiban couple.

Also, position 32 has been take but position 74 is now available for swap.

L.A. Police Chief designate Charlie Beck presented the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award to the Police Department's Gun Unit.  The Gun Unit's achievements are outstanding.  Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal firearms dealers in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of CCW permits to 23!

Ellen Boneparth
President, California Brady Chapters
November 10, 2009
California Chapters Celebrate
[If this is how the Brady people go about "respecting the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment" I would like to translate that into First Amendment language and see how it reads:

... The Jew Unit's achievements are outstanding. Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal synagogues in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of Rabbi permits to 23!

Yeah, it is just as I thought. Respect isn't really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

The Brady Campaign has now directly engaged us on the bigotry meme I started pushing several years ago.

Sebastian has addressed most of their points but I would like to pile on as well.

They say:

The truth, of course, is that guns and gun carrying are obviously not immutable characteristics of people, and that the whole cultural framework around the issue of gun violence prevention is a sham. (Brady Center Vice-President Dennis Henigan has exposed this most recently here and here.)

"Immutable characteristics" is a straw man argument I addressed in an update to the post that got their attention as follows:

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn't be bigotry either. I've got news for the Brady Campaign Staff--they're wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I addressed the claim that the cultural framework is a sham here using a paper published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. In that same post I pointed out that Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign admits in his book that causation between higher rates of gun ownership and crime are, at best, "difficult to show". I also pointed out they no longer insist the 2^nd Amendment is not an individual right. 

So if it isn't bigotry just what does the Brady Campaign claim as a basis for their continued insistence that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms be infringed? From their post they claim, "It has everything to do with public safety, public health and common sense."

Ahh... I see.

But they already admitted that public safety and health correlating negatively with gun ownership rates are at best "difficult to show". So all we have left is "common sense".

So tell me--Is that the same "common sense" used by whites that didn't want their children in the same swimming pool with black children unless it was cleaned afterward? Or maybe the same "common sense" used by some to insist their white daughters not be near black men or enter into interracial marriages. No. I'm sure that's not it--that would be bigotry. How about the "common sense" and documentary films that claim Jews are the vermin of the human race? Oh, that would be bigotry too? Then just what is this "common sense" justification for infringing upon this right and how does it differ from these obvious examples of bigotry?

Perhaps they haven't seen the definition of "bigot" recently. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

I have a challenge for Brady Campaign supporters--What evidence would it take for you to change your mind in regards to gun ownership and the public carry of firearms? Tell me and I'll give serious consideration to dropping the bigotry meme.

Wow! The things daughter Xenia does and posts about.

As I have reported before some people think other people's children are nice but we have interesting children.

For as long as I have been involved in the gun rights movement (over 15 years now) I have wondered "Why do people support gun control?" I figured there were most likely two things working in combination for most people. 1) A disregard for the Bill of Rights and 2) A belief that gun control would decrease violent crime.

That was understandable to me. One can make case for lack of due process and torture of suspects if you believe they have knowledge of a nuclear bomb about to detonate in a major population center. Bill of Rights be damned! Do whatever is necessary to save millions of lives!

It may not work and some people might even say it's not the right thing to do but I see a strong argument being possible. The Constitution is not a suicide pact argument is obviously defensible but it depends on the premise that the adherence to the constitution is tantamount to suicide in the given situation. I concluded that the anti-gun people either had data or believed data existed which demonstrated gun control made for a safer society and hence they were willing to ignore the constitutional issues. Gun control in the U.K. was frequently brought up as an example of the success of those policy decisions. As data from other countries brought in and then crime in the U.K. increased faster as guns were even more tightly restricted it became blindingly clear no reasonable person could believe gun control made society safer.

But the I more argued with anti-gun people and in particular listened to and read the writings of their leaders I realized most of them knew gun control didn't make society safer. This perplexed me a great deal and I asked Alan Gottlieb (founder of the Second Amendment Foundation) "What is the real reason they advocate more gun control?" Aside from the jokes it did seem to come down to a cultural issue as Gottlieb suggested. Although this raised other questions such as "Why don't these people respect the cultural of other people and just leave us alone?" it was the best answer I could find.

As I had more and more interaction with the anti-gun people over the years it became more and more clear people stuck with their anti-gun beliefs no matter how much data they had. Some even flat out told me it just boiled down to them not wanting to be around people with guns so they supported using the force of government to rid them of their discomfort. Mike Arst has more insight into this having been on the anti-gun side of the political aisle for many years before seeing the error of his ways.

Yet we have people like Dennis A. Henigan from the Brady Center saying it's not a culture issue (also here). For a while I wondered it was important to them. I think I understand now. As Mike Arst so eloquently explained in a different set of emails liberals are the enlightened, tolerant and know best what is for society. Cultural differences, in liberal circles, are to celebrated and embraced. Hence, if it is about a cultural difference then, as a liberal, they feel bound to respect different cultures. Since they are opposed to gun rights it cannot be a culture difference. But yet they do little more than try to prove their case via vigorous assertion. They don't answer Just One Question and in fact publicly acknowledge that any causation between gun availability and crime is difficult to prove. And in their recent brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago they have stopped insisting the 2^nd Amendment does not apply to individuals. They acknowledge the individual right to keep and bear arms yet they insist on restricting this right without giving justification beyond, "It has everything to do with public safety, public health and common sense." Ignoring the contradictions between their claims of public safety and health with Henigan own admission that any public safety benefits are so small that they are difficult to prove we are left with "common sense" as their reason for insisting on restrictions on firearms and their owners. "Common sense?" To me "common sense" means having a reason for spending vast amounts of time and money fighting for the elimination of a specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected right.

It was with this background that I was thrilled to see a paper in the Journal of Criminal Justice with the title "Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans". Wow! This is something I have to read.

Guess what they said? After all the review of previous studies, proposed hypothesizes, study methodology, and the multivariate statistics they arrive at this conclusion (page 503):

Support for gun control derives partly from a belief that gun control is an effective method for reducing violence, but this explanation has only limited power to account for positions on the issue. Many people favor control measures even though they think they will not reduce crime, while others oppose controls despite their beliefs that they will reduce crime. Further, support for gun control does not generally derive from personal experience with crime—robbery and burglary victims are no more likely than non-victims to favor banning handguns, and the experience of being an assault victim reduces support for this policy. The generally null results for victimization variables comport with past research that indicates that fear of crime and exposure to higher crime rates do not, on net, motivate support for gun control (Kleck, 1996). Thus, there is no sound foundation for expecting increased support for bans if gun crime goes up, nor for expecting declines in support if crime goes down. Consistent with this view, levels of support for gun control have remained generally stable in recent decades despite huge fluctuations in gun crime rates (Kleck, 1997, pp. 334-336; Smith, 2000).

Long-term stability in the phenomenon to be explained favors explanations that stress relatively stable causes. While crime rates fluctuate sharply over short periods of time, culture changes only gradually. Cultural cleavages among Americans remain fairly stable over periods of a decade or two; however, much the perceived need for crime-reducing strategies may change. Consequently, positions on gun control continue to be driven by the same cultural conflicts and antipathies that have divided the nation for decades. Those who have faith that police can protect them from criminals support gun control; conversely, those who believe that they cannot rely on the police put their faith in the gun, and oppose the stronger forms of gun control that might disarm them. Further, those who despise the “gun culture” as violent, racist, and backward support handgun bans, while those who reject such stereotypes oppose them. The stability of gun control views may also be due to the fact that most Americans already support moderate controls, so shifting opinion in a pro-control direction requires changing the views of a relatively small group.

These findings have a number of possible implications for the political struggle over gun control policy. First, they suggest that it is difficult to alter levels of support for gun control because support or opposition is partly grounded in relatively inflexible cultural traits. Changes in the level of popular support are more likely to result from relatively glacial, perhaps even intergenerational, cultural shifts. Second, even if solid evidence of the violence-reducing effectiveness of gun control were to be developed, and (perhaps less plausibly) large numbers of Americans were persuaded by the evidence, it is likely to have at best only modest effects on the level of support for these policies. Third, increases in crime are not likely to boost support for strict gun control, because the main effect of such increases is that they raise the number of crime victims who believe they must rely on their own resources for protection against criminals, a view that encourages gun ownership, and thereby reduces support for stricter forms of gun control.

I know I have said, "I guess we don't need to understand them. We just need to defeat them." but knowing the above does make a difference. People do support gun control because of cultural issues. They do support gun control even though they don't believe it will reduce crime. There are people who despise the gun culture and view them as violent racist, and backward. And Henigan is wrong. This study proves it.

What this means to me is that coming out of the closet, taking non-shooting friends to the range, and showing that gun culture is for normal people and not their stereotype of red-necked, knuckle dragging Neanderthals is essential for the long term survival of the right to keep and bear arms. And in the short term we must make it legal for people to come out of the closet and take their rightful place in society. The terrible oppression of gun owners in places like Chicago and New Jersey has to stop and that is where the courts will have to play a role. Just like the forced desegregation of public facilities in the south we must invest the time, money, and effort to give these people the opportunity to take part in the freedom and respect as normal human beings. It is taken for granted by many gun owners but that respect is denied to millions in this country by the cultural elites who, in the words of Mike Arst who once belonged in their ranks, "... tended to think of 'gun nuts' as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh?"

This looks interesting:

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

It's in the Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 37, Issue 5, September-October 2009, Pages 496-504.

I find it particularily intriguing that "Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners" are more likely to support handgun bans. That sounds like bigotry to me.

I could get it online for $20.00 or I could go to the library. I'm not sure which I should do. I have other things to do this morning. I'll decide this afternoon sometime.

Update: I have two copies sent via email now. Thank you! You can stop emailing them to me now. I've read the article and will make a post on it later today. Busy with something at work right now...

SB 6396, the so-called "assault weapon" ban bill, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the policy committee cut-off. Knowing he didn't have the votes to pass it out of committee, he didn't even bring it up for a vote. While in Olympia earlier this week, one Senator showed me two 4" thick binders full of e-mails opposing SB 6396. Several others mentioned similar responses. Along with the overwhelming turn-out for the public hearing last week, it's input like this that demonstrates the strength of the gun lobby in influencing the legislative process. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, we're ALL the gun lobby!

Joe Waldron
February 6, 2010
From GOAL (Washington State Gun Owners Action League) Post 2010-5
[This is great news. And this also backs up what Chrix Cox says.--Joe]

In the past I have had the impression that Sebastian has not wholly bought into my advocacy of portraying anti-gun people as bigots. But this post by him has him landing on the topic with both feet and getting into a word fight with the Brady Campaign.

I can understand people being of the opinion that pushing the bigotry meme is not productive. But I don't think any rational person can defend the claim that the following post by Mark Morford is anything other than the words of a bigot:

Hello and welcome to our store! Please, feel free to look around, make yourself comfortable, enjoy our fine offerings and, oh yes, by the way? Please, no murdering.

Also, no raping, gang-banging, popping off, stabbing, mauling, stealing stuff, or walking around in a confrontational macho huff, ready at a moment's notice to harass any of our normal patrons with a snarl and a vague threat of violence because you feel it is your God-given right, given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun "Open Carry" sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers, walk around in public places and freak people out. Thank you so much!

I'm sorry, I see you are still wearing your little weapon and strutting about like you are the rather doughy, bad-skinned king of the sand castle. Perhaps we were not clear? Shall we try it again?

Clearly, you are not a police officer. Therefore, the management, our employees and pretty much everyone within a 100-mile radius would very much appreciate it if you would put away that ego-fluffing man-toy that is designed solely to kill other living creatures and induce fear and ignorance as it regresses every hesitant advancement in the human soul back to caveman grunting lunkishness. Thank you again!

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we'll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won't you?

What, no drink? You now wish to order nothing at all and instead plop yourself down in the corner, plug in your laptop and angrily scour Facebook all day for evidence that your ex-girlfriend, the one who left you two years ago at a full, what-the-hell-was-I-thinking sprint, is now dating a liberal or a pacifist or an atheist and is far, far happier than she ever was with you? We understand. We appreciate your desire to partake of our free Wi-Fi, buy nothing and not give a damn that we can't really stay in business that way.

Why, look at you! Refusing to step away from the counter and instead choosing to read aloud from your little card that says how it's completely legal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded firearm in a public space! Way to stand up for your rights! God bless America!

Turns out you are right. It is legal, sort of. Then again, so is eating gravel, wearing a giant hat made of cow manure and squirrel tails, and slapping yourself in the face repeatedly while ranting semicoherently about Jesus, masturbation and Shania Twain. And you don't see anyone doing that, do you? Except Carl over there?

We realize it might seem unfair. Far be it from us here at the neighborhood cafe, where families and small children and book readers come to chat and feel slightly better about their day, to ask you to leave because your energy is so low and repellant and also downright silly.

But nevertheless, I'm afraid that's exactly what we're going to do. We would appreciate it if you would take your business elsewhere. Right now. No? Very well.

We had hoped it wouldn't come to this. We had hoped to find a better resolution. However, in response to your insistence on carrying a firearm into our premises, we have no choice but to change our official policy, right here and now, on the spot.

Again, we mean no offense, you jingoistic lump of mancrazy. You are indeed well within your rights to be a thoroughly paranoid coward who has no real inner strength, confidence or social skills, to a degree that you feel you must carry a deadly weapon around to feel like you even exist. We understand your thinking completely. It's basic psychology. Very, very basic. Childish, even.

So then. Like any business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But we realize there are some people for whom this is not specific or clear enough. We realize some people have to have it, you know, spelled out and publicly displayed.

Therefore, we have revised our list. Please note the new sign we have just posted on the front door. We have expanded and clarified a few things. We hope it helps.

Effective immediately on these premises, there will be:

• No murdering
• No raping
• No pillaging
• No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
• No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
• No screaming bloody murder
• No morons
• No panicking
• No testing on animals
• No jumping for Joy. While she appreciates your enthusiasm, our cashier is happily married. Thank you
• No live birthing
• No dumping
• No livestock
• No smoking
• No smoking the livestock
• No exit
• No way out
• No diving
• No spitting
• No way!
• No Crusades
• No "Star Trek" re-enactments
• No skinny-dipping in the half-n-half
• No doubt

Thank you so much for understanding. Free sample biscotti on your way out?

And what does Paul Hemke the Brady Staff (correction by the Brady Staff in this post) in a post on the Brady Campaign blog say of this bigotry? "Best. Answer. Ever."

Had this been about interracial or homosexual couples holding hands and kissing the outrage over a such a post would result in demands that the San Francisco Chronicle fire him. Hemke defends Morford and his support of Morford with:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from firearms that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t guns, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 30,000 (the number shot to death every year in this country).

In the paragraph above let's substitute "ni**er" for "gun" and "firearm", correct the numbers to match, and see how that plays:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from ni**ers that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t ni**ers, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 6,000 (the number murdered by "ni**ers" every year in this country).

That sounds a lot like an argument I would imagine someone from the KKK or some other white supremist would make in supporting restrictions against non-whites. Yet they appear to be blind to the parallel.

That some people are frightened by others exercising a specific enumerated right is not justification for infringing that right. As one judge said in regards to the First Amendment, "... free speech cannot be limited on the basis of 'undifferentiated fear". It is a severe and unjustified infringement on liberty to engage in prior restraint based on the imagination and paranoid fears people like Helmke and Morford have about gun owners.

It's not just Morford and Helmke that want to put up the equivalent of "No Coloreds Allowed" signs on businesses they frequent. Here is another bigot having his say on the topic:

Many intelligent educated and reasonable people feel that the presence of openly-displayed guns in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing. Some of them may feel the gun owners are not to be trusted. Others may feel that guns in a crowded public place are too easily within reach of kids and criminals. Some may feel a tacit threat from those carrying weapons, which gets back to the trust issue. But, whatever they're thinking, aren't they free to think it? Don't they have a right to feel any way they want? Aren't they entitled to request Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy?

How many "intelligent educated and reasonable people" need to feel the presence of ni**ers in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing before it stops being bigotry? How many people have to feel ni**ers are not to be trusted before it is acceptable to enact regulations and push businesses to ban them?

Certainly they are free to think and feel whatever they want. And they can petition Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy with legal intervention to back them up. No one is advocating otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't feel the outrage from the public for their bigotry. But should they take that bigotry to the next level where they injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate people for exercising their right to keep and bear arms then they should be prosecuted.

I've taken Paul Helmke to task on this before but he just doesn't seem to get it. But I shouldn't be surprised. Bigots have a tough time learning.

Update: The Brady Campaign has directly responded to this post. They claim that if it is not an immutable characteristic such as skin color then it isn't bigotry or a civil rights issue:

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn't be bigotry either. I've got news for the Brady Campaign Staff--they're wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2^nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

See Notes on Lethal Logic for links to all my posts on Dennis Henigan's book Lethal Logic.

Chapter 1 of Lethal Logic is titled: "Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People."

Henigan claims cars are a valid analogy to guns:

Automobiles do not often exceed the speed limit without a driver behind the wheel. Sitting in a driveway, a car seems pretty innocuous indeed. Does this mean that the sum total of our public policy response to reckless driving should be severe punishment of drivers who violate the law? Few would think so.

For example, most of us are quite comfortable with the idea that before anyone is permitted to operate an automobile he must be licensed by the government to do so.

...

It makes sense to have a system in place to prevent potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place.

The first thing wrong with this is that Henigan ignores driving on public roads is considered a privilege and that in D.C. v. Heller all nine supreme court justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. Rights may not be licensed. You don't have to get a license or even notify the government if you decide to worship zero, one, or a dozen gods. You don't have to get a learners permit from the government to learn speaking in public. You don't have to fill out justification papers in triplicate, pay $100, submit your fingerprints, and wait 90 days before being allowed (or denied on the whim of some bureaucrat) to exercise your right to read Das Kapital, or Mein Kampf although those books and many other books have directly contributed to far, far more deaths, violence, and misery than the private ownership of firearms has. Even abortion, where it can be argued that an innocent life is being taken, no one has to take a class, apply for a permit, give a reason to a government bureaucrat, and have government records on file for exercising that right. Creating expensive, time consuming barriers for those choosing to defend innocent life using the best available tool for the job just somehow "makes sense" and infringment on a specific enumerated right is unworthy of notice.

The second point is that our drivers license system does not "prevent potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place." It only allows for an easier means to identify those that may be lower risk drivers. There are lots of people that drive without a license and data indicates unlicensed drivers are involved in 17% of fatal car crashes. It is misleading for Henigan to use licensing of drivers as a successful model for gun ownership, use, and "prevention of gun violence". And more directly to the point one only needs to check out Chicago and Washington D.C. with their firearms licensing schemes and see how effective they were in "preventing gun violence" compared to the surrounding communities.

Henigan and his organization expects us to believe that it is possible and desirable to prevent bad things from happening. Preventing crime has long been a hot button of mine. And it's not just me. The legal system has ruled on this in specific reference to firearms before and even has a name for it in relation to the First Amendment: Prior Restraint.

The next point Henigan tried to make is that guns are unregulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission or in some similar manner to what the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration does for automobiles. I don't need to give this point much attention in this chapter because Henigan doesn't do anything with it. The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations have attempted to get magazine disconnectors, loaded chamber indicators, microstamping, and "personalized" firearms (also called "smart" guns) mandated. They have been successful in Maryland, New Jersey, and California but I find it telling they have yet to supply any data showing this has improved public safety. I expect these restrictions will be found by the courts to be unconstitutional within the next few years.

I know of no gun rights activists who believe regulations such as those proposed will satisfy the anti-gun people. I am of the opinion that "everyone" knows the only thing it will do is increase the price of guns with no measurable public safety benefits. Increasing the price in of itself is seen as a good thing by anti-gun people as shown by their frequent mention of "cheap" handguns in a pejorative manner (see page 164 in Lethal Logic, the Brady Campaign website, and the VPC website).

The remainder of the chapter is devoted to explaining that guns are weapons which makes it possible for a single person to take on multiple people from a distance and with reduced risk to the individual with the gun compared to a knife, or baseball bat. This is true. And as Henigan points out this is a bad thing when a violent criminal uses a gun to do evil. But what Half-Truth Henigan doesn't say is those same characteristics make it a useful tool for self-defense. It allows the elderly, the disabled, and the outnumbered to successfully defend themselves.

Regardless of which point Henigan attempts to make he completely fails to "explode the myth". The most that can be said of this chapter is as a lawyer he knows how to distract people from the fact that guns don't kill people--people kill people.

Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign wrote the book Lethal Logic--Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. I would like to point out he claims, "Although this book has its roots in my work with the Brady Center, it is not a book produced by the Brady Center nor does it necessarily reflect the views of the Brady Center." Hence his flaws should not necessarily be attributed directly to the Brady Campaign.

The reason why he wrote the book and what he claims to have accomplished are described inside the front cover:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

“An armed society is a polite society.”

Who hasn’t heard these engaging assertions, time and time again? Burned into the national consciousness by years of targeted, disciplined messaging by the National Rifle Association and others, they are just a few of the bumper-sticker slogans that have defined the gun control debate in America. Long ridiculed by gun control advocates, they are the first words that come to mind for most Americans when the gun issue is discussed.

This is the first book both to acknowledge the profound and deadly impact of the gun lobby’s bumper-sticker logic on the gun control debate and to systematically expose the misguided thinking at the core of the pro-gun slogans. Indeed, the author contends that the gun lobby’s remarkable success in blocking passage of lifesaving gun laws is the result, in large part, of its relentless and effective use of these simple and resonant messages. Their persuasive power has been a largely ignored influence on the current politics of gun control, in which the gun lobby wields unprecedented power in the Republican Party, while many Democratic Party leaders see the policy benefits of stronger gun laws as not worth the political risk of standing up to the NRA. Lethal Logic contends that the current political stalemate over guns will never be broken until the pro-gun slogans are exposed as the cleverly disguised fallacies that they are.

I read the book and took lots of notes. I'm finally getting around to sharing them.

I planned to just make one post but it would simply be too large and take too long. I have other things to do beside refute the rants of bigots. So I am going to break it up into smaller posts.

Henigan has a chapter for each "fallacy"/"bumper-sticker". I will address them one by one and update this post with links as I finish the post. The chapters are:

1. "Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People."
2. "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."
3. "But What You Really Want..."
4. "An Armed Society Is a Polite Society."
5. "We Don't Need New Gun Laws. We Need to Enforce the Laws We Have."
6. "Is Budweiser Responsible for Drunk Drivers?"
7. "From My Cold Dead Hands..."

But first I want to address something I find irritating every time I look at it. That is the cover:

The bullet holes look fake to me. Here are close ups:

The holes aren't round enough. And every paper bullet hole I have seen is more uniform than these. Perhaps a different type of paper causes the difference but I think it is more likely they were faked.

The central policy issue is whether the enactment of specific restrictions on firearms will prevent violence. Whether violence necessarily increases with the number of guns available in a society provides little guidance on that central issue.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Lethal Logic, page 108.
[Even after reading the entire book I still have to shake my head at these two sentences. They almost directly contradict each other. If violence doesn't increase with the availability of guns in a society then that does tell us that guns are an independent variable in the search for ways to prevent violence. "Independent variable" means it doesn't make any difference in the outcome. Hence they cannot legitimately claim violent crime as justification for "specific restrictions on firearms".

He does attempt to explain what he means in the following pages. But it boils down him claiming that restricting access and public carrying of firearms does prevent violence and it does not decrease "the number guns available in a society". This is a disingenuous at best and actually is factually false. Even the CDC says there is no evidence that any gun control laws have made people safer. Just One Question has been around for over five years now and still there hasn't been an answer come up that Henigan would be happy with. And anytime you increase the cost (money, time, and risk of innocently breaking a law are including in the definition of "cost" in this context.) the market will respond by lowering consumption. Hence, ANY restriction put on firearms will necessarily decrease the number of guns available.

Throughout the entire book Half-Truth Henigan very carefully words things such they are just barely true or only delve into outright falsehoods long enough to arrive at misleading conclusions. I think I have the time today, so today is going to be the day that I go through my notes on his book and make them into a blog post.--Joe]

Can the United States government actually get too large? Can “We, the People” ever retake control of our elected government officials?

Young marksman Oren Fletcher learned to hunt in the hills near his family’s farm and spent hundreds of hours at the range target practicing with his custom-built, high-powered rifle. Upon the untimely murder of his father at the hands of the newly and illegally created United States Federal Office of Gun Enforcement, Oren takes matters into his own hands.

With a strong and dedicated will to eliminate and sidetrack those who would destroy our country's Second Amendment and the Constitution, Oren sets out to restore solid American values based on his own interpretation of our nation’s “Supreme Law of the Land.”

Several subplots interweave the novel, finally intersecting with a definite finality for the “bad guys.” Meet “Louie the Pig,” a murderous repeat offender and his druggie partner Raymond Porter, along with street scum Bobbie Jones, who murdered Oren’s mother.

The United States Enforcers are worse than these lowly felons. Hiding behind newly created American laws created to remove all guns from private ownership, the Enforcers raid and pillage gun owners with sanctioned impunity. Under the leadership of Enforcer General Bob Woods, the Enforcers forever change the meaning of the words “gun collector.”

While Oren makes the biggest impact on both criminals and Enforcers alike, it is a host of American heroes, the Militia, if you will, that shows its indomitable American spirit throughout this novel.

Oren's War
From the back cover and the website.
[I've just barely started it but this may be the book for gun owners in this decade that Unintended Consequences was for them the 1990s.--Joe]

Via Glenn Reynolds (via Say Uncle), I found out that TSA let a guy with a gun and a convincing demeaner put his "prisoner" on an airplane.

How can people put up with the security theater at the airport without a look of disgust and anger at the people pawing through their stuff and putting their hands all over them? It's all to make some people feel better.

If someone had the help a dozen people or so who knew what they were doing (here is a hint) the TSA could be thrown out on the street. It's wouldn't be pretty for a week or two, it wouldn't be legal, but I think it could be done.

TSA, A Security Theater.

Via email from veteran Boomershooter (he was at the FIRST Boomershoot in 1998) Steve M. and the author of the article, Jack Lewis, I found out the March 2010 issue of Motorcyclist magazine has an article about a trip to Boomershoot 2009 from the Seattle area on a motorcycle with a sidecar--a 2WD Ural Safari.

It includes a lot of photos (by Shasta Wilson) and is a great story. It includes typical Boomershoot experiences like:

Bundling Pretty Wife into fuzzy blankets, I tossed two cased rifles across her chest and we were off.

"Don't worry, " I bellowed, "It won't rain in the mountains!"

It didn't rain. It snowed.

I bought out the entire supply of the issue at the newsstand in the lobby of the Crossroads Mall in Bellevue, WA and they said they are unlikely to get any more in. The Barnes and Noble next door only had a couple of February issues when I checked on Sunday evening but if you check there now they might have one.

The article starts on page 70.

Via email from co-worker Chet.

Although I haven't heard any trainers directly address this it has been hinted at by some:

Scientists discovered that people move faster when reacting to something than when they perform "planned actions".

In an experimental "duel", published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, they studied the speed of these two types of movement.

...

Pairs of participants were put in a button-pressing competition with each other. Each was secretly given instructions of how long to wait before pushing a row of buttons.

"There was no 'go' signal," said Dr Andrew Welchman from the University of Birmingham, who led the research.

"All they had to go by was either their own intention to move or a reaction to their opponent - just like in the gunslingers legend."

Those who reacted to their opponent were on average 21 milliseconds faster than those who initiated the movement.

During one or more of the classes I took from InsightsGreg Hamilton told the students to "use your startle reflex" when the buzzer goes off to decrease your draw time. It works.

You can actually see it other shooters. New shooters take a lot longer to start moving their hand toward the gun and it moves slower when it does move. Tell them to use their "startle reflex" and after a few repetitions you will see their hands jerk into motion and reduce the amount of time required to get their gun deployed.

Apparently we have different pathways in the brain and we can consciously reroute the signals to decrease the time.

This strengthens the wisdom taught in NRA Personal Protection courses about "drawing a line". The students are told they must have a mental threshold past which they will take some sort of action. It might be something like "the door opens" when someone is trying to break into your safe room. Or "they come around the corner of the counter" when the bad guy is advancing at you with a knife. You are reacting to something the bad guy did. In addition to increasing the speed of your response to a threat you are less likely to suffer from a "boiled frog" situation where the situation escalates and you keep postponing your response because "it's not that bad" yet.

Update: See also the Scientific American podcast via Say Uncle.

Oakland California is trying to more heavily restrict firearms dealers. Never mind that there aren't even any gun shops in the city that sell to the public. When this was pointed out they responded with:

I think he wants to be sure that nobody gets any ideas of opening something. And if they did, they could regulate it under this law.

The very idea of someone contributing to people being able to exercise their rights needs to be repressed. At least they aren't (publicly) advocating killing gun owners as some people advocate.

There's a legal and very practical way to deal with open carry gun advocates that will get rid of some bad genes in CA. Tell the open carry gun advocates you dare them to come to your house with their guns. If they are stupid enough to come into your house with their guns get your loaded gun out and blow them away. Not a court in CA will convict you of any crime. This falls under the use of force (lethal) laws in CA. Whether the gun carrier guns are loaded or not you cannot tell and you have the lethal legal right to protect yourself here. This would be a good way to get rid of these mentally challenged people and will contribute to making the gene pool better in CA. Most of these gun carry advocates are already pretty close to getting a 1st place Darwin award. Help make sure that they do get it.

rectifier
February 3, 2010
Comment to Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed
[Remember, these bigots don't just want you in the closet. They want you dead.--Joe]

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the "gun lobby" makes lots of arguments without "the fear of gun bans". If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn't notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn't include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with "gun bans", are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

1. Henigan didn't read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
3. Henigan didn't believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I'm inclined to go with #5.--Joe]

The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn't considered "balance" to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is-- a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women's suffrage coalition of Mayors?

One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, "enemy of the state" has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.--Joe]

From Fan Security Will Be Tight At Super Bowl:

Bomb sniffing dogs and bomb experts will be fanned out around the stadium trained to spot the smallest explosive anywhere. "These K-9's, they have been trained in over 19,000 explosive components," said Hugo Barrera of the ATF. "They can detect almost anything."

If they actually did that the dogs would be worthless for the task at hand. So many ordinary things can be made to explode (matches, powdered sugar, flour, anti-freeze, fertilizer) that dog alerting on "the smallest explosives anywhere" would have so many false positives that probably a quarter of the people coming into the stadium would be searched.

All the bad guys already know the following so I'll tell you what many people don't want to know--the truth.

You can't make a stadium (or airplane) full of people safe from harm in this manner. What security experts call "The Threat Surface" is just too large. And it's trivial to overload the system with false positives which gives the security guys two options. 1) Shut down operations by investigating each "alarm" by doing a thorough investigation of each "alarm" (do you have a latex allergy sir?) or 2) After the backlog of impatient and irritated customers gets too grumpy they let them bypass the security protocol.

If you want to get something past security in these types of environments you can intentionally create false positives. False positives can bring down almost any security system where there is a modest amount of anonymity and backlog of "angry customers".

For example: The main ingredients for a common suicide bomb in the mid-east are acetone and hydrogen peroxide (both available at your local drug store in the "beauty" section). Covertly spray one or both of these chemicals in "the smallest" amounts on the ground/floor where people will walk on it prior to being screened. Everyone who walks on it instantly becomes suspected shoe bombers when they are screened. What happens then? Sometime before the 100^th false positive in a row the security people ignore that particular "alarm" and let people on through. The 110^th person actually does have a bomb in his shoe and walks through security without incident.

Another example: A car alarm that goes off every couple of hours every night without apparent cause will probably have the alarm turned off by the third night.

Super Bowl Security is just Security Theater.

Via Jeff I found out about National Association for Gun Rights India. I immediately forwarded the link to Shobana and Priyanka (and here).

I then read the article and found out, as expected with something highly regulated, there is corruption involved:

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

To illustrate the point, gun advocates refer to a 2008 incident in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The clamor for gun licenses was so high, according to news media, that officials tried to induce men with large families to participate in a vasectomy program by promising a license in return.

If the men have to get a vasectomy to get a gun license I wonder what the women have to do. I wonder if they think this through... if the woman pays too high a price to be able to get the proper tool to defend herself and family there might be an increased potential for some payback when she gets her gun.

Gun Control supporters are in the grips of a long term voter backlash that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990's planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.

As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state...Eric Holders comments.."talk" of closing the gun show loophole. Even Brady giving Obama an "F" reminds us, that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.

The talking heads on the news, that talk about "meaningful gun control" and complain about "lack of movement" on it, don't realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in "rest of the nation", that "they are still trying to ban guns"...They elites just don't get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..

The Brady Campaign's and VPC's successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept "poking" the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners... The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their very last votes.

Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now...

15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..

Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993....The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.

If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and "not one step more".

In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy...We are a creation of them, now they can feel our wrath, its not our fault that we outnumber them by 10 to 1 at every meeting, lobby day, or public event..

The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators....BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down...

They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on...to victory...

Virginia Mountainman
January 31, 2009
Death of the Gun Control movement, birth of the Gun Rights movement
[I think this is a little overstated but the essence is true.--Joe]

At the hearing on the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" in Olympia last week someone got an education in gun rights:

Prior to the hearing, as several Open Carry activists gathered in the hallway of the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building, Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli approached a member of the State Patrol’s security team and, after pointing out that there were visibly armed citizens in the building, demanded of the trooper: “Do you know if they’re loaded?”

Sources have confirmed to the Gun Rights Examiner that Fascitelli appeared both irritated and unnerved, and he wanted the State Patrol troopers to check every firearm at the door of the building to see if they were loaded. He was told by the WSP that troopers do not have the authority under state law to do that.

Apparently news of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution, the Washington State Constitution, and Heller decision hasn't reach Mr. Fascitelli yet. This is the same guy that said anyone that uses a semi-automatic gun to hunt is "an animal assassin". Maybe since he is from New York he is just a little "slow". Odd, he doesn't look that stupid:

Maybe he just thinks "those people" should just "learn their place" and he was hoping for some support by the police in teaching them a lesson. Instead he got the lesson.

I wish the WSP had just told him, "I would assume they are all loaded. Why would they carry unloaded guns around? We don't." Of course had he burst a blood vessel in his brain someone might have been charged with manslaughter. Just imagine the headlines--"Gun nuts kill without firing a shot" or "Looking at gun owners proves deadly".

Still, I think that in this case the benefits of open carry proved their worth. The risk of manslaughter charges was worth the pleasure of unnerving Mr. Fascitelli and teaching him that as the board president of the anti-freedom organization Washington Ceasefire he has a long hard battle ahead of him.

Occasionally I have spent time on understanding those opposed to freedom. Other times I just said it doesn't matter why -- we just have to defeat them.

Kevin put a lot more effort and research into the understanding that I ever would have expended. It's basically a extended book report on A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell with lots of supporting material from Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek to Markadelphia. I've put it in my "wish list" of books to buy from Audible.com and will probably start it within a week or so.

It took me an hour to read (it is a classic Kevin Baker post) but I found the enlightenment worth my time.

The main point is there is a fundamental first principle that differentiates advocates for freedom from those that oppose us. Sowell and Baker, in this post, refer to two different "social visions": the Constrained and the Unconstrained.

The Constrained Vision people advocate, among other things, setting up processes to limit the damage done by the extremes of individual human behaviors such as violent crime and group crimes such as enslavement and genocide. This limits political power for both good and evil. The Constrained Vision advocates view the limit of political power as a trade-off. Sure, it might be that you can create something closer to a utopia if more power is given to the government but the risks are not worth it.

The Unconstrained Vision people minimize or dismiss the possibility enhanced governmental powers becoming a hazard and focus on the possible benefits. When the enhanced governmental powers fail to deliver the anticipated benefits they advocate even more governmental powers and the silence and/or death of those that oppose them. Facts become irrelevant (as seen in my post made a few minutes before I started looking at Kevin's post).

Ultimately the two differences in first principle lead to conclusions that are diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. In this video where a liberal scumbag running for U.S. president gets rights and privileges absolutely backward you have to conclude that even though he is a lawyer that he cannot have read the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I keep reading Kevin's post, hoping to find something that could be used as a tool to recover our freedom in this country. What can you say or do that lead us out of what to some appears to be a death spiral?

I didn't find the conclusion I was looking for. Instead it was in the first few paragraphs. As Sowell says (via Kevin):

Peter Robinson: If you had a sentence or two to say to the Cabinet assembled around President Obama, and this cabinet holds glittering degrees from one impressive institution after another, if you could beseech them to conduct themselves in one particular way between now and the time they leave office, what would you say?

Thomas Sowell: Actually, I would say only one word: Goodbye. Because I know there's no point talking to them.

Hence, understanding is not all that important. Only defeating them is important. I'll still be trying to understand but the more I understand the more I agree with son James here and here.

Via daughter Kim:

Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don't appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.

The study, expected to be released at a conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, comes amid stepped-up efforts by federal highway-safety regulators to ban texting while driving and curb other forms of driver distraction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this week announced rules to forbid commercial truck and bus drivers from text messaging while driving. Mr. LaHood has said he would ban all texting while driving if he could.

...

The HLDI, a research organization sponsored by the insurance industry, studied data on monthly collision claims in four states that banned the use of hand-held phones by motorists before and after the bans went into effect. The HLDI also compared collision data from states that enacted bans on driving while texting or phoning to accident claims in states that didn't enact such bans.

I find the Department of Transportation response "interesting":

The Transportation Department in a statement Friday criticized the HLDI findings, saying "it is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation's roadways."

Typical of the nanny state mentality -- in their minds the use of actual facts and data is "irresponsible".

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.

John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.

There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible "immutable truths". It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100's of millions by those attempting to build a "workers paradise". And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)--Joe]

What's happened is that, true to form, Democrats can't seem to get out of their own way. Unlike their counterparts on the right, the party leadership, from Obama on down the Congressional line, is comprised of a bunch of spineless, visionless, disorganized, pseudo-intellectual sailors sinking in a sea of their own delusion and denial.

Andy Ostroy (Democrat)
January 27, 2009
The Problem with Democrats
[Considering that nearly everything they attempt to legislatively do cannot be found in the enumerated powers granted them by the U.S. Constitution I don't have a problem with this.--Joe]

When police are called to a 'man with a gun' call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply 'exercising their rights.'

Lt. Ray Lunny
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
January 28, 2009
News report inspires man to display gun in E. Palo Alto store
[Sounds a lot like responding to a call about someone "driving while black" in the "wrong" neighborhood.

You have to "love" them putting "exercising their rights" in quotation marks.

Via Say Uncle.--Joe]