There has been much talk lately about how gun violence is a public health issue and that, in order to fully understand its epidemiological dimensions, we need to do a dissection of each incident to determine the precipitating factors, the relationships, why and when the shooting occurred, get to the reasons that will explain the violence, the thinking being, I guess, that if we can figure out the reasons, then we can address the reasons and reduce the violence.
I don’t think there are reasons.
I think there are guns.
There are guns everywhere. Everywhere. You better believe it. Right now, in Wisconsin, people are walking around with guns in holsters like this is the O.K. Corral. The folks who went through a $50 concealed carry class walk around in a haze of superiority because their gun lust got sprinkled by respectable fairy dust. Two sides of the same coin to me, the guy who takes a class so he can put his new gun in a fancy holster and parade around town, his jacket artfully arranged so everyone can see that his gun is ready, real ready and the guy whose second or third hand stolen gun is wedged in the lowdown of his pocket; it’s a dick festival in either case. Call it what it is.
It’s not about the reasons.
It’s about the guns.
July 13, 2014
Orbiting Zorkon: Gun Violence in Milwaukee
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S. who said, “really got my attention when she compared legal carry with criminals carrying stolen firearms”.
Yes. She thinks it’s about the guns. She thinks there is no difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. Citation needed. But you know that isn’t going to happen because she goes all Markley’s Law instead.
She has crap for brains.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Criminalization and confiscation is NOT the end goal. It’s just the beginning.
September 26, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Star-Ledger Editorial Board.
[In other words the reason they want to confiscated the guns is because they want to do something that would be difficult or impossible to do if the general population were armed. I.E. their plans are so offensive to the sensibilities of ordinary people that those normally peaceful, law-abiding, people would be willing to use deadly force to oppose the implementation of those plans.
If their plans are that offensive then I’ll be keeping my guns. I’ll be encouraging others to keep their guns. I’ll be teaching new people how to shoot. I’ll be giving people an opportunity to practice using their guns in challenging situations. And I’ll be politically opposing those who want to restrict the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
No one is going duck hunting when 5 percent of the ducks might shoot back.
September 25, 2014
Packing Pistols in Public Seen as Next Gun Control Battle
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference… Mandatory gun buybacks.
Do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.
Star-Ledger Editorial Board
September 19, 2014
What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
[H/T to Sebastian.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
“Mandatory gun buyback.” What a way with words they have. It’s amazing how much deception they can pack into three words.
It isn’t a “buyback” if the buyer didn’t own the property at some previous point in time.
It isn’t a “buy” of any type if it is mandatory. It’s compensation for confiscation.
How is what they are proposing any different than a “mandatory First Amendment buyback”? I’d be interested to see their reaction to being told they were being compensated, say $10K, for their First Amendment “privileges” and then informed they were being hysterical when they complained. On their way to prison, of course, for violating the ban on free speech.—Joe]
India’s $72 million Mars orbiter is the cheapest interplanetary mission ever. Modi said that India’s Mars mission cost less than what it took to make the famous Hollywood space movie “Gravity.”
September 24, 2014
India becomes first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit, joins elite global space club
[If India had a more gun friendly political atmosphere I might consider moving there. They still have a lot of messed up political ideas, corruption in government, and religious/class/caste issues but as the United States crumbles it is on my short list of refuges if things get really bad.—Joe]
We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace.
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
I can’t imagine people who failed to disarm two years ago are going to voluntarily show up at a “disarmament center” to “surrender their weapons”. The government is going to “build peace” by sending armed men out to round up those people who registered their guns.
Marxism never ends up in a peaceful utopia. But it is one of the most certain paths to a police state and massive human suffering.—Joe]
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via One Of Them (@tazcat2011).
No data, no logical argument, just insults. It’s the best they have to offer.—Joe]
By definition, it is logically impossible to commit a firearm homicide or firearm suicide without using a firearm. Even if the availability of guns had no bearing on whether they were used in homicides, you’d expect a significant positive association between guns per capita and rates of gun-related deaths.
University of Florida Criminologist
September 18, 2014
Do guns make us safer?
[This is why gun owner rights advocates talk about violent crime instead of “gun deaths”. We are concerned with violent crime and how to make people safer.
And this is why the anti-rights people insist on talking about only about deaths that involve guns. And that is why they include suicide and justifiable homicide. It is only by coming up with misleading statistics that they can arrive at numbers that seem to justify their anti-rights agenda.—Joe]
In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy. You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.
September 17, 2014
Lawmakers grudgingly draft bill to authorize concealed carry of guns in D.C.
[But guns are different than speech or religion! No one is harmed by speech!
Ideas are more powerful than weapons. How many innocent people have been murdered on the basis of books like Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, and The Qur'an? Compare those numbers to the number of individual criminal uses of firearms and then get back to me.—Joe]
It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun-control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience.
May 6, 1983
Speech at the Annual Members Banquet of the National Rifle Association. Phoenix, AZ.
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.
Reagan was shot March 30, 1981. James Brady, the other victim on that day, just recently died. Their shooter still lives and although he spent a lot of time in a psych ward he never went to prison.—Joe]
Guns are not the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Guns would not have saved the victims of the Navy Yard.
Mayor of Washington D.C.
September 17, 2014
Gray Calls For ‘Real Gun Control’ At Navy Yard Ceremony, Says D.C.’s Laws May Be ‘Relaxed’
[Then what was the purpose of the guns in the hands of the responding police officers? And why do many of the politicians in his jurisdiction have armed guards?
This guy has crap for brains. Or else he thinks you do.—Joe]
No automatics of any kind.
Single action long arms will fulfill all the needs of home defense, hunting and sport.
September 11, 2014
Forum post in Your Ideal Gun Control Method
[It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. And the Supreme Court of the United States says the Bill of Rights protects the type of guns this idiot would have other people take away from you.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
I am no great orator, thinker or politician… I do not know or care for the ins and outs of public policy, suicide risks, criminal motives and I care not for morality. I treat my firearms as tools for self-defense. Nothing more or less. They are expendable, but they are not to be traded away for empty promises of cowards and nebulous promises of “safety”. Provide me everlasting invincibility, immortality, and impunity from danger and I will happily melt my guns into ornaments. Until that day, though, I will place more trust in cold steel and hot lead than the empty promises of cowards.
September 12, 2014
Forum post in Your Ideal Gun Control Method
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Open carry activists: jerk-offs with teeny weenies.
Peggy Jones Coquet
July 4, 2014
Facebook comment to PQED: How should people respond to open-carry gun-rights activists?
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a comment by Barron.—Joe]
And of all the promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a post-racial future. He and his progressive cohorts can never surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Ferguson is yet another example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage, creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters — that he and his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the dustbin of history of a healthy and racially healed nation.
August 20, 2014
[H/T to Kevin.
I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Gun control supporters would like nothing more than for gun owners to think that resistance to the anti-gunners bottomless pocketbooks is futile. But, we know that no matter how much money the anti-gunners spend, they can’t buy our freedom, because it’s not for sale. Let the anti-gun billionaires know that by Voting Freedom First on November 4.
September 12, 2014
Harvard: Millions of Dollars More For Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
A Form 1 came back approved for a new Machine Gun. Jaqufrost was quickly contacted by the ATF saying he has to send back the stamp.
This thing is growing legs and will probably go to court. Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court.
All things considered, this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns. If this fight starts moving forward, it’s going to tale a monumental amount of commitment to see it through. Hold fast, everyone. We’re going to need all hands on deck for this one.
September 10, 2014
ATF ruling may have opened door to new machine guns–Pg9 Form 1 APPROVED Pg18 ATF call audio
[Background material is here.
Audio of the ATF phone call:
Interesting. Very interesting!—Joe]
I visit family in Idaho about once month. Something that I frequently notice is the huge difference between being on the farm in Idaho and working in a high rise office building in Seattle. I am sometimes driving truck, combine, or a bulldozer in Idaho one day and looking out over the Puget Sound from behind my computer in a skyscraper the next.
There are other profound differences as well.
Here are my daughter Kim and Jacob at their home in Idaho. I took this picture on Saturday:
The sign isn’t anything particularly special. It is sold at Michaels, a national chain store for arts and crafts, where Kim works as she finishes her accounting degree at the University of Idaho. Yet the odds of seeing a sign like that in the Seattle area are asymptotically close to zero.
I imagine this sign would put people of the anti-gun crowd into an apoplectic state. It appears to me that the concept of property rights and being able and willing to defend those property rights is alien to them. They might give lip service to the concept of diversity and tolerance of other cultures but they make it very clear by their actions they are actively attempting to destroy certain cultures. They want to destroy one of my cultures.
It’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damned thing.
March 19, 2007
Ditch the Second Amendment
[“Modest proposal”? I wonder what a “radical proposal” might be. Ownership of a handgun means an obligatory conviction for terrorism? We know what that leads to. But, in his world view, that might be a feature rather than bug.
He does recognize that repealing the Second Amendment is not currently politically feasible. What I don’t think he realizes is that even without a Second Amendment it would be “problematic” to enforce the gun bans and confiscations that he envisions would follow. Somehow the lessons of prohibition and the “war on drugs” are beyond his imagination.
But probably the most important takeaway from Wittes’ opinion piece is that you should never let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Recently in Atlanta, a stripper was followed home by two guys. When they started to attack her, she pulled a gun. They ran. So why don’t these stories make headlines? Because they don’t fit the left’s narrative on guns. They don’t even ask the questions we want to know — like just where does a stripper carry a gun?
September 7, 2014
HART: Gun control debate re-emerges
[Of course it’s a rhetorical question. I don’t have firsthand knowledge but I think it is a safe bet strippers rarely go home without putting on their clothes.
But if you really want to give it some thought nudists have a similar problem. It’s really not that hard of a problem to solve. Fanny packs and purses work well enough even if the draw is slower than with a belt holster.—Joe]