The View From North Central Idaho

Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck Idaho farm boy who became a software engineer living near Seattle.

The View From North Central Idaho

This is what happens in places without guns—Case XXV

Via Barron.

From the U.K. New Jersey (Thanks ubu52, Barron said U.K. and I didn’t read my own copy and paste of the article, sorry about that) where guns are not allowed. Hence two young thugs can beat up on an old homeless guy without fear of meaningful self-defense or someone else defending their innocent victims:

A pair of cruel youths wished a bloody homeless man ‘Merry Christmas’ after brutally beating him and stealing his bicycle near the New Jersey shore.

Police tracked down and arrested 20-year-old Taylor Giresi and his 17-year-old cameraman after the boys posted a video of their crimes in two videos on YouTube.

The footage shows Giresi stalking through the woods in Wall Township, New Jersey, after declaring: ‘About to go beat up this bum.’

DavidIvins

‘About to be a knockout,’ the 17-year-old responds with a laugh, according to an account by the Asbury Park Press.

This is what happens in places without guns—Case XXIV

From Mexico where private ownership of guns is almost completely banned:

Lorena Villareal Elizondo went to meet a friend at the Casino Royale, a popular low-cost lunch spot, when armed men burst through the door shouting: “Get out! Get out! We’re going to burn everything!”

It was only 19-year-old Carla Maria Espinoza Vega’s second day at work at the casino when the intruders sprinkled accelerant around the front door and set the building on fire.

Both died in the arson attack that killed 52 people, mostly women, in the casino this wealthy northern city.

With the arsonists in plain sight and without cover they would have been under almost immediate fire as soon as they opened their cans of accelerants. There might have still been a fire but it would have been much smaller and there would have been perpetrator bodies in the ashes.

This probably also qualifies for one of Weerd Beard’s Gun Death posts.

Quote of the day—Marcia Capellan

#GunControl, por favor! Or just ban guns completely! What’s wrong with the world? #whereisthelove? [link]

@linoge_wotc Why should I respect ignorance and violence? I could never do that. #peaceonearth [link]

Just realized that I’ve done absolutely nothing to prepare for the hurricane. Oops! Hope Philly will be OK. #Irene [link]

Marcia Capellan
August 26, 2011
See also her follow up blog posting.
I also gave serious consideration to “Thank you, dear Twitter gods, for giving the willfully ignorant, narrow-minded, and bigoted a place to demonstrate their shortcomings freely and without limitations to the rest of the world.
[The irony is almost intolerable. In addition to her realization that she has done nothing to prepare her blog is titled “Clear Quiet Thoughts”. It’s easy to be clear and quiet when they are so ignorant.

Of course “Reasoned Discourse” has broken out at her place. See the continuing discussion someplace more free.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

As if the tragedies were the responsibly of the NRA and completely ignoring the fact that in nearly all mass shootings the victims were disarmed by their governments and left essentially defenseless. It is the NRA that works to enable the victims to protect themselves via training and repeal of the laws that made them defenseless. The NRA attempts to solve the problem created by the government and this artist attempts to turn public opinion against the NRA and prevent the NRA from saving lives.

Quote of the day–John R. Lott Jr.

When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, even German ones, they usually start off by asking why multiple-victim public shootings are such an American problem. And of course, they are astonished when I remind them of the attacks in their own countries and point out that this is not an American problem, it is a universal problem, but with a common factor: The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

John R. Lott Jr.
June 11, 2010
Gun Control and Mass Murder
[H/T to Dave Hardy.

I would have said “private citizens” instead of “civilians” but he still gets the point across.–Joe]

You ARE the Help

The now infamous North Hollywood bank robbery has been analyzed every which way and beaten to death.  Dozens of cops pinned down and absorbing fire from two sedated robbers was a disgusting, pathetic situation.  But this isn’t about that.  Seeing the History Channel documentary on it again the other day only reminded me of the larger point.  What triggered this post was the comment that these dozens of cops were waiting for help.


Help?  Dudes; WTF?  You ARE the help.  As Ron White pointed out; any teenager having experience with a hunting rifle could have ended the bank robbery standoff with two shots from a concealed position.


It comes down to mindset.  Sure, some people have more capabilities and resources than others, but in your everyday life, you, the reader, ARE the help if you have your mind right.  Bringing a pistol to a rifle fight is just one of countless examples of going through life, and even responding to an on-going situation, unprepared and oblivious.  Condition white.


You Do have fire extinguishers in your house and garage, right?  You do carry one in your vehicle, and you do carry jumper cables, tools, a working jack, water, a first aid kit, a spare coat, a good spare tire, a tow strap, a phone and a carbine, right?


I don’t have to try to display a complete list.  That’s not the point.  It starts with the mindset.  After that, the list comes along naturally.  Nor does preparedness come solely from hardware and supplies.  You can have all the goodies and not the mindset that tells you, everywhere you go, that you are the help.  Backup is another matter.  You are the first responder in your own life.  You choose either to face up to it or shirk your duty.


The current crop of weasels in government would have you do the latter.  They fear and hate the strong, the self reliant and the charitable, as threats to their relevance.


Tam’s recent post provides further study.

Quote of the day–Suzanne Laplante-Edward

The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.

Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.

Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument–use your own money and don’t hassle other people in the process.–Joe]

Add the U.K.

You can add the U.K. to my list of places I don’t want to visit until they start selling hunting tags for politicians and the police.

This is just too outrageous:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”. Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested. I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said:

“I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke’s garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included “reporting found firearms”.

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: “Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?” To which, Mr Garnett replied: “No, I don’t believe so.”

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.

Bigotry against gun ownership gone wild.

Via Kevin.

Quote of the day–Paul Helmke

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed–just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke’s organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.–Joe]

Very Good Post

Most of you probably already visit Kevin’s blog regularly.  If you don’t, please go and read this piece.  It’s by one of his readers, formerly of the U.K.  It’ll take you a few minutes, but it’s well worth it.  It’s an overview of what’s been happening in the U.K. and what, I submit, has been happening here in the U.S. though more slowly (until now).

How’s that gun ban working out?

The headline tells the story–London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double.

It must be that someone somewhere needs to have their gun show loophole closed, have one gun a month law passed, or “assault weapons” banned.

Oh yeah. I forgot. They are way past that point with a complete ban on nearly all guns and people increasingly use guns in the commission of violent crimes.

And it’s not just a little bit either:

…[T]he number of actual shootings has almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months compared with the same period last year, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across the capital.

So what’s the reason they want to ban the guns in our country? What do they think the benefit will be? We know it and they know it. It’s not about making people safer. They have some other motivation because the data tells everyone that gun bans do not make people safer.

So what is the real reason for wanting to restrict firearm ownership? After failing to get an answer to Just One Question that should be follow up when they still insist on “common sense” regulation. Either that or just tell the bigots Μολὼν λαβέ.

Gun control is patriotic

Sometimes you have to just shake your head and call for the guys in the white uniforms and the butterfly nets:

The more people own guns, the more likely guns are to be used. If Cody wants to do something genuinely patriotic and helpful to her country, she should support gun control legislation.

I suppose it depends on how you define “patriotic”. If “genuinely patriotic and helpful to your country” means enabling genocide then she is absolutely correct:

Update: Daughter Kim reminded me:

patriot, n. and adj.
 
1. a. A person who loves his or her country, esp. one who is ready to support its freedoms and rights and to defend it against enemies or detractors.
In early use, as in French and Dutch, chiefly with ‘good’, ‘true’, ‘worthy’, or other commendatory adjective: cf. ‘good citizen’. ‘Patriot’ for ‘good patriot’ is rare before 1680. At that time often applied to a person who supported the rights of the country against the King and court.

Quote of the day–Benedict D. LaRosa

The headlines in India and across the world should have read, “Terrorists and Gun Control Claim More Victims.” Instead, the complicity of the various Indian governments – national, state, and city – was ignored and their inability to protect the victims of that tragic event was barely questioned. The truth is that, except for a few policemen on the scene, all the victims were unarmed by public policy. India has among the strictest gun-control laws on Earth, which, according to gun-control advocates, should have made Mumbai one of the safest cities on the planet. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone with common sense or a historical perspective that disarmed citizens and visitors had no way of defending themselves and were, once again, the victims not only of terrorists, but of the misguided, immoral policy of their governments.

Benedict D. LaRosa
October 17, 2009
The Horror of Gun Control in Mumbai
[I’m doing my part to help remedy the situation by teaching some of the Indians I know how to shoot. The students have enjoyed the lessons, are continuing them, and are contemplating purchasing their own firearms.–Joe]

Quote of the day–James Higham

There was a time when it was not necessary to defend oneself in this country of ours. There was a time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. There was a time when a Briton wouldn’t dream of being armed.

That time has passed.

James Higham
July 20, 2009
[defending ourselves] the time has come
[James lives in the U.K. and is saying the gun and self-defense bans aren’t working and it’s time to change things. It is a little more timid than I would (and do) approach the subject but perhaps that is more appropriate when dealing with these people.

James uses several of the references I provided via email (and blog post). He also quotes Just One Question and my Jews in the Attic Test. Thanks for the links James.

So far the comments are essentially neutral. Perhaps people are thinking about it rather than just lashing out. If so, then perhaps there is hope for them yet.–Joe]

When guns are banned

If bans actually worked and guns were not available you would see more of this (warning–it’s very graphic!).


How fast can you draw and fire a shot? How much distance can an attacker cover in the same amount of time?


In answer to the first question 1.5 seconds is a reasonable estimate for most people. 21 feet is the answer to the second. Draw your conclusions and modify your behaviors appropriately.

It’s about control

From Massachusetts:



If the intent of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was to discourage the sport of hunting and competitive target shooting and to disarm Massachusetts citizens, it must be considered a howling success. In 10 years since its passage, the number of licensed gun owners has decreased from 1,500,000 to 220,000, an 85 percent drop, according to figures provided by the by the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee. Well done!

If the intent was to reduce crime, then that law must be considered a miserable failure. Based on incidents per 100,000, gun-related homicides are up 68 percent, assault related gun injuries up 72 percent, assault related hospital discharges up 160 percent, gun assault Emergency Dept visits up 222 percent and gun assault outpatient observations up 538 percent. Keep in mind that these increases occurred when there were 1,280,000 fewer licensed gun owners in the state.

In addition to not curbing gun crime, the legal gun owners have had to bear the brunt of additional costs and inconvenience, not to mention the constant character assignation that licensed gun owners receive. There appears to be a misconception that has been instilled into the public that everyone who owns a gun is suspect and is one to be feared.


Well, duh! It’s about government control not citizen safety. It always has been. It makes people feel safer. And for most people perception is reality. That and people will enthusiastically accept statements like, Just because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it. I’m with James on this.

We Get it, Already

This is an open letter to all the talk show hosts, pundits, party hacks, cheaters, scumbags, sick twisted freaks (you know who you are) and pro-freedom bloggers.  We could spend the rest of our lives cataloging the outrageous behavior of nasty, America-hating, ignorant, self-loathing, cultist, freedom-hating, anti-human, leftist politicians including Progressive Republicans.  We know they’re bad, OK?  If there are three or four people who still don’t get it, that’s all right.


I’d rather try to figure out how we’re going to get some principled Americans nominated so we’re not always forced to choose between bad and worse– between more socialism slower, and more socialism faster.  This last national election was a real puker.  The Republican Party is, at the moment, just as lost, dumbfounded, selfish and clueless as ever.  They’re a herd of does, staring blankly into the headlights of an on-coming truck, and the worst part of it is; they don’t even suspect that they’re clueless.  They in the Republican leadership think they have some really clever answers, which amount to more of what got us into this mess.  I recently heard it described as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  That fits very well.  The Republicans have some really super great, super ultra smart ideas for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  No really, listen…  (all the while we have this simple, proven model for success, and it’s being ignored.)


We need to change that.  You need to change it.  I need to change it.  There isn’t anyone else.  I suppose, since it’s up to us, it will have to be on the local level for most of us, being as we’re not billionaires.  That’s OK.  We can still do what we can do.  A lot of people are jazzed up right now.  They just need somewhere to start.  Well, pick a place, a local issue or a local politician that needs a hand (or a very public spanking) and get to it!


That there are clueless people is not the issue.  There will always be the clueless.  They’ll sit on the sidelines, worrying about who likes them and who doesn’t, trying to figure out where the “center” is so they can position themselves in it and claim superiority for having done so, while someone else does the lifting.  Are you a sitter or a lifter?


I have a bad feeling that things could come to blows before this government is brought under control, and I really don’t want that to happen.  Do you?  This country is far too important in the grand scheme of things.


And with that; I don’t have much more to say on here, other than to repeat myself or talk about the weather and what I did last weekend, unless it’s to tell you what I’m doing on the local level to influence politics.  Now I think I have some calls to make.


(Note that I placed this in nearly every one of Joe’s categories. It’s relevant to everything we do and every opportunity we want for our kids in the future)

Another shooting where people aren’t allowed to have guns

Four shot, one dead. For all practical purposes private individuals aren’t allowed to carry guns to protect themselves in California. The results are predictable and tragic:



TEMECULA, Calif. (AP) — A gunman opened fire at a Korean Christian retreat center, leaving one woman dead and four people injured, authorities said.


The gunman, described as an Asian man in his 70s, was among the wounded, Riverside County Sheriff’s Sgt. Michael Lujan told KNBC-TV on Wednesday.


Authorities were first called to the rural area about 7 p.m. Tuesday after receiving reports about a man shooting his wife, California Highway Patrol spokesman Mario Lopez said.


And frequently when states allow their subjects to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms they want to make exception for churches. Do they have some believe in a supernatural force that will protect people when they are on church property? Or do they have some hostility toward people that believe in god(s) and secretly hope the will be killed in injured while at church? This example shows such a supernatural force does not provide any such protection. Until a better hypothesis is presented I can only conclude the advocates for restricting access to self-defense tools while on church property want theists to be helpless while they are being killed and injured.

More Brady Campaign Score correlations


I updated my Brady Campaign Score for state gun laws correlations. Previously I used FBI UCR data from 2005 with Brady Scores from 2007. My present results use only 2007 data and added correlations for the total violent crime rate, murder, and rape. The spreadsheet is here but the interesting part is as follows:





























FBI Data Type


Correlation Coefficient


Violent crime rate per 100K


0.016


Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate per 100K


-0.072


Forcible rape rate per 100K


-0.491


Percent murdered with firearm


0.056


Percent murdered with knife


0.287


Percent murdered with weapon other than firearm


0.028


Percent murdered with hands, fists, feet, etc.


-0.114


Remember:



The correlation coefficient always takes a value between -1 and 1, with 1 or -1 indicating perfect correlation (all points would lie along a straight line in this case). A positive correlation indicates a positive association between the variables (increasing values in one variable correspond to increasing values in the other variable), while a negative correlation indicates a negative association between the variables (increasing values is one variable correspond to decreasing values in the other variable). A correlation value close to 0 indicates no association between the variables.


For the most part there is no correlation between Brady Scores and the crime data. The exceptions are there does appear to be a moderate association between good Brady Scores and a decrease in rape and slight increase in the chances that if someone is murdered they will be murdered with a knife in Brady approved states.


The rape data point is a mystery to me. Most men have enough of a physical advantage on the average woman that having “easy access” to a gun would not seem to be an important part of forcing a female victim to comply. If “easy access” to guns were to enable any crime I would think it would be murder or even violent crime in general. But that does not seem to be the case.


Also of interest is that the FBI has footnotes explaining that Illinois didn’t supply much data and that for some unexplained reason Florida was not included in Table 20.


Any speculation, other than random coincidence, on why there is a negative correlation between good Brady Scores and rape rates?

UK gets a lecture. Is anyone listening?

Richard Mundy spells it out for them in the Times Online. I just wonder if anyone is listening:



The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.


For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.


The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.


The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.



In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.


“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”