Josh Horwitz apparently believes if a government declares slavery for blacks, or extermination of Jews, or capital punishment for homosexuals the law of the land then the targeted people need to just accept it. Not only does he apparently believe it is true he wants to ensure such a government won't have to worry about serious resistance:

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.

Odd, isn't it, that the same set of people that just successfully overthrew a tyrannical government in the late 1770's would write a constitution with the intent the new government should be able to disarm the populace so future generations would not be able to do the very thing they had to do?

Of course the above is a rhetorical question. Horwitz has his head "in the sand" (this is a family friendly blog). If you read some of the amicus briefs you will see Horwitz gets his head handed to him.

The headline reads, Moore's Gun Control Proposal Is Shot Down By County Commissioners. But was more than that. It was more like stripped naked, body slammed, machine gunned, and urinated on:

County Commissioner Marie Moore’s proposed ordinance to restrict firearms use in the county was solidly rejected by her colleagues Monday night and she took a tongue-lashing from irate citizens as well.

Vale resident Sam Houser said that Moore’s proposal was a “waste of money and time” and urged that commissioners reprimand her for violating their rules by springing the idea on them without any discussion or public input at a meeting earlier this month.

Commissioners had scheduled  a public hearing on the idea for March 3, but their rejection of the ordinance Monday night ended the need for that.

Moore’s proposal would regulate firearms use near houses and occupied structures, but speaker-after-speaker told commissioners that laws are already on the books that would prosecute anyone who maliciously or careless fires a weapon.

Sheriff Tim Daugherty told commissioners he thought Moore’s proposal was unenforceable and said he didn’t want his deputies wasting their time chasing down and investigating calls that would result if the ordinance passed.

Commissioner Alex Patton, who made the motion to kill Moore’s proposal, said that he had received more than 100 emails and 30 phone calls, and not a single person he heard from is in favor of the idea.

“It’s not right for Lincoln County,” he said, rejecting Moore’s contention that a public hearing should be held before a final decision was made.

Commissioner Jim Klein said that it was “unfortunate that this ordinance got as far as it did” and said it is “an ordinance that we don’t need in this county.”

Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet.

Commissioner Bruce Carlton then weighed in and said that life has risks and it’s not government’s place to remove every hazard from daily life” unless we want what he called a “vanilla world.”

Patton then sealed the fate of the ordinance by saying that common sense can’t be put in an ordinance.

The audience applauded much to Moore’s chagrin.

Chairman Tom Anderson said that he believed we have laws already in place to cover the issues that concerned Moore, and urged residents to be responsible in their use of firearms.

Earlier, Denver resident Jamie Barnes who has complained about what he calls a nuisance puppy mill on Petite Lane, said there were three accidental shootings in the county last year and 177 dog bites with one fatality.

He said that it seems to him that gun owners are more responsible than puppy mill owners.

“I am more afraid that my daughter will be attacked by a dog than shot,” he said.

Only one citizen spoke in favor of Moore’s proposal, noting that he and his wife were working in their garden when “bullets whizzed overhead.”

Patton’s motion to kill the gun control measure passed 4-1, with only Moore in dissent.

I love the "spirited defense" the North Carolina anti-gun bigot put up, "Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet."

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

Lazarus Long
A character in "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein
[When I started my QOTD thing my intention was to never repeat a quote. I'm making an exception this time because of this. It's called Verizon Bad Math, but it's not even math. It's 4th grade arithmetic. Background is here. I didn't read it all. It's way, way too painful for me.

What's your call?

• It is the public school system
• Verizon hires only arithmetically challenged people
• People in general are just mind boggling stupid
• Some people should not be allowed to breed
• Abortions should be available on a retroactive basis

Listen sometime when excess adrenaline won’t be a problem and you have your blood pressure meds handy.

Thanks (I think, I may not be able to sleep tonight) to Taqi for the pointer.--Joe]

I have to reluctantly agree with Kim on this one.

You don't pick a fight with George Foreman
You don't get snarky with Tam
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Kim

Okay, it wasn't as scathing as I would have expected but I like to laugh at my own jokes.

[Apologies to Jim Croce]

I didn't have time to read it all before I rush off to work, but it looks like really good stuff.

From: David E. Young 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: History News Network article criticizing amicus of professional historians in Heller case

History News Network has published my article severly critical of the amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court by fifteen professional academic historians in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban in the Heller case.

The more people who know about how historically off-base the professional historians' brief is, the better. Other briefs presenting historical material in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban have relied on these completely mistaken historians for their material as well.

The direct link to the HNN article is: http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

David E. Young
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment

Author - The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms

In addition to the email exchange yesterday I tried to engage a few others.

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:47 AM
To: 'bree_dalling@musician.org'
Subject: Gun control laws will save lives

Regarding your opinion piece here: http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/storage/paper951/news/2008/02/19/Opinion/OpEd-Gun.Control.Laws.Will.Save.Lives-3219311.shtml

I have just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

---

In regard to http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2008/02/20/EditorialOpinion/Gun-Control.Problems-3220468.shtml

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:25 AM
To: 'kbruck@student.umass.edu'
Subject: Gun control problems.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:45 AM
To: 'jackson@globe.com'
Subject: Missing on gun control.

Regarding your article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/19/missing_on_gun_control/

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

---

In response to http://www.houstonvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=16602

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:45 PM
To: 'knaff@washblade.com'
Subject: Time to get serious about gun control.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From Florida:

The pastor of a southwest Florida church opened many eyes and ears Sunday when he said he wants married couples in the congregation to -- have sex for 30 days in a row.

Dr. Joe says, "Well, it's a start I guess."

I"ve been tilting at windmills again. This one is in Kentucky.

The time stamps on the email are a little messed up because we are in different time zones.

---

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:38 AM
To: lli@kykernel.com
Subject: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:24 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

The "average" students murdered in Virginia Tech and NIU would not have been killed had stricter gun control been in place to prevent two killers from purchasing handguns legally. I hope that answer your question.

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:51 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

That is a prediction about what might have happened had things been different. It is a closer to a hypothesis rather than a fact or a valid conclusion. Stated differently, "What evidence do you have that would actually be the case?"

Over the years there have been thousands of laws passed restricting weapons.
Hundreds of studies have been done testing the hypothesis that such laws make people safer. These hypotheses have never proven out. That is a fact.
If you have evidence otherwise then you will be making sociological and criminological history and you should publish a paper on it. If your data stands up to scrutiny you will be famous.

There is an alternate hypothesis that also must be tested which I don't think you have considered, "Does the restriction of weapons enable and/or encourage predators by ensuring their victims are defenseless?"

I repeat my one question, "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

If you wish to get into semantics, using your own logic, your question itself is invalid. By using the word "safer," an adjective in comparative form, you imply that there must exist two outcomes of one scenario, but since the question is in the past tense, there is only one actual outcome.
Making any comparisons would inevitably include making a hypothesis of a different outcome front the actual past, which invalidates the comparisons because you are only looking for "a fact or a valid conclusion." To demonstrate how the question as you intended is not fair, apply the question to finding an argument supporting more gun access. You will inevitably use a hypothetical argument with your example.

Many studies show that the United States lead all developed countries in number of firearm-caused deaths porportional to population, and that lead is substantial. While these statistics and many arguments are inconclusive, or rather, imperfect - in the pure logical sense - to prove that restricting firearms can reduce danger to society, we make worldly decisions based on commonsense and pragmaticism, and all the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

You are correct in that the experiment cannot be run again with the same initial conditions changing on the legal restrictions on weapons, but apparently you haven't read my blog posting
(http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx) or any of the papers on the subject. There are two ways the comparison is done: 1) Compare violent crime rates (not just violent crimes assisted by firearms) before and after a restriction was enacted; and 2) Compare violent crime rates during the same time period in geographically adjacent but politically different jurisdictions. For example Washington D.C.'s violent crime rate can be compared before and after the handgun ban (time based comparison).
And geographically Virginia is "just across the street" from D.C. with much less restrictive weapon laws. There are hundreds of opportunities for studies of this nature with the thousands of laws that have been enacted in many countries. The more geographically and culturally distant the two (or
more) zones you are comparing the less likely you will obtain valid results.
Hence your comparison of the U.S. to other "developed countries' would be suspect even if it were to compare violent crime rates rather than just violent crime assisted by firearms.

If you want to examine mass shooting such as Virginia Tech and the more recent North Illinois University tragedies then please compute the correlation coefficient between "gun free zones" (such as schools, workplaces, and states that prohibit people from carrying defensive tools) and the instances of these type of events. Nearly all of them happen in places where firearms were banned. They almost never happen in shopping malls, theaters, and other locations with large numbers of potential victims but yet are allowed to carry defensive tools. Compare, for example, the recent school shootings in the U.S. compared to the recent event of TWO attackers at an Israeli school: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/310078.aspx

You claim, "All the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled". Yet I have seen zero evidence of this. If you have such evidence you will, as I said earlier, be able to make quite a name for yourself because no one has yet been able to supply it. I would be honored to help you earn your just fame by posting it on my blog in response to my "Just One Question" post.

As for the "commonsense" approach you need to evaluate other viewpoints for validity. Although I agree your appears valid at first glance I view the situation a little differently from you. It's not quite a simple as we would like it to be.

Another way to look at the problem is to make the problem space much smaller. Are YOU made safer if the government takes all your defensive tools from you? I think the answer is clear. No, you are only made safer if the government takes offensive tools away from others that might harm you.

The problem boils down to how does the government (or any other entity) remove weapons from predators with minimal or no impact on the potential victims? No one has been able to accomplish this. It always seems that the predators are less affected by weapons restrictions than are the potential victims who would use the weapons for self defense. This is because most potential victims will obey the restrictions and the predators will obtain weapons illegally or have little or no need for weapons if their prey has been disarmed. Hence weapon restrictions, at best do no good or worse create a low risk environment for predators.

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

I did go back and read your blog post, and I have to say that its arguments are less sound than the arguments presented in your correspondence. For one, you automatically presume that no one can answer your challenge to the point that you wrote, "any comments to this post presuming to support a "Yes"
answer will be deleted." What's the point of posting a challenge if you don't allow any challengers to respond?

To answer your questions from the previous mail, the possible evidence you suggested cannot possibly be logically extensive. Besides semantical arguments, I can also raise more commonsensical arguments to rebuke the proposed evidence. For example, Washington, D.C., has consistantly had high crime rates, so comparing its crime rates to Virginia is unreasonable. In addition, despite the fact that some states/establishments may have much stricter gun control, because guns are easily accessible elsewhere in the state/country, the danger factor from firearms is not necessarily lowered.

I understand that I probably won't be able to change your stance on firearms, nor do I expect you to do the same to me. However, I appreciate the fact that you are using reasoning rather than threats and slogans to get your message across. Now, if only you can be so reasonable in your blog posts...

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:52 AM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Apparently you missed a paragraph in my post:

-----
If you are someone that has a "Yes" answer and believe you can conclusively demonstrate that then write it up and email it to me. Plan to have your work posted on a website of my choosing along with my comments. I will give you credit for your work or keep it anonymous--whichever you prefer. I will put links to those responses in the comments to this post.
-----

I welcome responses. I just didn't want the debate taking place in the comments.

D.C. was just a quick example. Anyplace where a law has been enacted which affected the restrictions on firearms either a time based comparison and/or a geographically based comparison can be (and probably has been) made. The end result of those studies? Weapons restrictions do not make people safer.

You think my blog posts are unreasonable? Would you consent to my posting of our email discussion? Would that make me appear more reasonable?

And what of your reasonableness? You appear to hold the position that firearms should be severely restricted or perhaps banned. But as many times as that experiment has been tried you appear to be either unwilling or unable to demonstrate where that made people safer. So, if you maintain that belief one has to ask, "Why do you maintain that belief when you have no evidence to support it?" What is the real reason for you to hold on to such a belief? None of the answers I can come up with are very pleasant.

Thanks for taking the time to think about the issue. That is a lot more than most people do.

Regards,

Joe

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:49 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Just because my evidence to support my belief is invalid in your mind doesn't mean it's invalid to the rest of us. I wouldn't hold a belief without believing in some reasoning or evidence supporting that belief. So I do not understand your rather militant questions at the end. I respect anyone's opinion, and regardless of whether I agree with it, I am sure that the person has his/her own reasoning, valid or not. So if you don't agree with the evidence and reasoning I stand by, at least consider the fact that, to me, they are as valid as your evidence and reasoning for lifting gun bans. Hopefully, that'll refrain you from calling me a bigot or any other unpleasant name you can come up with.

And if you wish to post our exchange on your blog, I'd be OK with that. But it is your blog, and you have the liberty to do what you wish.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:43 AM
To: 'Li, Linsen'
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Belief has nothing to do with the validity of evidence.

To respect all opinions is to have no respect for the truth.

Perhaps you haven't seen the definition of "bigot" recently. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot): "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Share with me the evidence which answers my one question in the affirmative and I'll change my mind. What evidence would it take for you to change yours?

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Barb says the joke is getting old. I still think it is funny. Maybe I'm just slow on some things.

In any case there is more evidence of global warming climate change:

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

As people continue to push for restrictions on human activities to prevent global warming climate change you know it has to be they have an agenda other than what they claim it is. It is my belief its about desire for government control rather than freedom. Freedom is too scary for most people.

A terrible crime is committed so government officials want to Do Something^TM to prevent it from happening again. Never mind that prior restraint is supposedly illegal. Never mind that what they propose is illegal and a felony. They admit, in virtually the same breath they used to push their proposals, that their proposals won't work:

But after the news conference, state Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, acknowledged they would not have prevented the NIU shootings. Authorities have said the NIU gunman legally obtained the weapons he used.

If they know their proposal would not have prevented the crime then it's obvious their proposal is intended for the stated purpose. It's about something else. What is that something else? I can't say for certain. In fact it may be they don't even know. The question these bigots need to be asked, "Since you know this proposal won't prevent such crimes, what's the real reason you advocate more restrictions on firearms?"

Kevin Cullen is from Boston so it's no surprise he doesn't have a clue about guns:

So, some cow chip-kickin' senator from Louisiana doesn't want Mike Sullivan, the US attorney in Boston, to become head of the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms because Sullivan wants to make it harder for people to get guns.

Um, isn't that what the head of the ATF is supposed to do?

Let me spell it out for you Mr. Cullen, you're from Boston so I understand the concepts are difficult for you.

The head of the ATF, just like all other government officials are required to uphold the constitution. Until such time as the Bill of Rights is declared null and void it is the NOT the job of the head of the ATF to make it harder for people to get guns. In fact the "Head of the ATF" should be actually be the CEO of a convenience store by the same name (actually you should tack the 'E' on to the end of it but I'm not going to complain if that market is handled by a separate chain that specializes).

Congress surely has the power to regulate firearms in Washington; but if Congress felt that disarming Americans at home were necessary for its security, it might have attempted to do so in the first 177 years of the city’s service as the seat of government. As recent history demonstrates, those who would attack our capital are hardly deterred by Petitioners’ ban on handguns and functional firearms in the home.            

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit

As pointed out by others (and here) Hillary wants a gun summit:

“I believe we really should have a summit where everybody comes together on all sides of this issue,” Clinton said. “Let’s figure out how we can be consistent with the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep people safe.

“I think we can do that, but it’s going to require us all to maybe give a little and understand the point of view of the other people,” she said. “That’s something I would do as President to really bring people together.”

I'm all for reaching a middle ground. In fact I have given this a lot of thought in the past and already determined what the middle ground looks like. Just adopt my position and everyone will save a lot of time and energy.

And even if my reasonable compromise isn't acceptable do not forget Sean's valuable insight.

At 5:59:55 I received a phone call. As I said, "Hello" I pushed the "Delete" button to make position 31 available. The man on the phone wanted to sign up for Boomershoot. I told him he had to do it on-line. He thanked me and I wished him good luck.

At 6:02 Carl pushed the button that claimed the position.

Carl was the instructor for the first firearms class I ever took. Taking that class enabled me to obtain my Idaho concealed carry license.

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy right now. It's time to go back to bed with Barb.

From Time to decide: Gun control or out of control? By Adrienne T. Washington, February 19, 2008:

"I felt just shocked, like I had been hit by a truck," Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying. "There's over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S., and what are the chances that my company is involved with two mass murders inside of a year? I'm dumbfounded."

Really? With 90,000 licensed dealers and no one knows how many more unlicensed dealers, I'm not.

I've stared at these two paragraphs for several minutes and can only conclude Ms. Washington has a seriously malfunctioning logic center. But, as I like to say, it's irrational to expect people to be rational.

In my previous posting on microstamping I tried to be as objective as possible. Now I want to give my opinion.

Microstamped bullets

As much as the anti-gun people would like to implement something as expensive and worthless as microstamping of bullets matched to their cases and boxes I believe they will be laughed out of the legislatures. It is just too difficult and impractical to implement and even the police will complain at the paperwork and expense. Add in the ease with which stolen and re-manufactured ammo will defeat the technology and only the most rabid anti-gun people will support it. The police have a lot of influence anytime guns are brought up and without their support this technology will be defeated.

Microstamped firearms

The argument that microstamping of firearms will help solve crimes committed with guns is invalid. The only criminals that will be caught with this technology will be the stupid ones, those that committed crimes of passion, or those that had no plans to get away with the crime (murder-suicide types). In those cases the criminal would have been caught/detected anyway and the microstamping of the firearm will be irrelevant. There will be a few borderline cases where the microstamping does make a difference but the numbers will be insignificant. This is of little concern to the anti-gun people. Even if all crimes committed with guns were solved instantly they would still demand the banning of firearms. It's not about crime reduction, its about banning guns even at the cost of increased crime (see Washington D.C. and Chicago for example). That they tried less drastic measures and they failed will be one of the reason given for the more harsh measures which follow.

Microstamping of firearms, at this point in time, would be a great burden on manufactures. But I believe I have solutions to all the problems mentioned by NSSF as issues for manufactures. All those issues can be solved with a few changes in their processes. If so, then the promise of only adding a dollar or two to the price of the gun might become a reality. It will take some time and it will cost money to make the changes but ultimately it won't be major obstacle to microstamping. I'm not going to provide those answers here because it does no one any good. If I can come up with the answers in less than a day then so can a lot of other people.

As much as I would like for all manufactures to follow STI and Barrett's lead in refusing to do business with California and other anti-gun states the lure of having a less competitive market will mean some manufacture will fill the void. If there is a demand then someone will supply it. Just as with recreational drugs the price will be above free market levels and the quality may be lower but the demand will be filled. Once the boycott, if it ever becomes that, is broken by one or two manufactures then others will probably fold as well. The only question will be whether the manufactures will make guns specifically for sale in those anti-gun states or will they continue to sell non-microstamped guns in other states. I think the answer to that will depend on the "people of the gun". Will we pay a premium for an non-microstamped gun and/or will we mount an effective boycott against the manufactures that sell into the anti-gun states? I don't know the answer to that.

Conclusion

I'm left without a strong argument against microstamping and I'm afraid ultimately our legislatures will be too. It won't make a measurable change in the solving of crimes but it won't hurt the non-criminal gun owner much either. I can't make a case for it violating the Jews in the Attic Test because I claim the technology can be easily defeated. I don't like it because it is worthless and it gives validity to "reasonable government restrictions" on firearms. Ultimately it will lead to government restrictions on defacing the microstamping just as the existing laws against destroying the serial numbers of firearms. The replacement parts will ultimately be tracked and even if you purchase a gun through a private sale without a 4473 being filled out the repair of the firearm, even on your own kitchen table, will result in your gun being, again, tied to you. But this incremental firearm registration will be not be a sufficient hurdle to block it's passage in the legislatures.

I believe the bottom line is that in order to stop state legislation mandating the microstamping of firearms we will mount an effective boycott of those manufactures that sell into those states. Against Federal legislation we will have essentially no defense.

The Solicitor General has argued, Congress may prohibit such persons as idiots, imbeciles, felons, and children from possessing any firearm whatsoever. Id. at 25-26. While the Second Amendment would not absolutely preclude exclusions, it does prohibit them if they rest upon the constitutionally impermissible ground of unfitness. Exclusions may only be based upon the foundation that the class of persons excluded are not art of the constituent "people" -- i.e., those persons ho have authority to constitute and reconstitute the government -- being either incapable of giving the requisite consent to be governed, such as children, or having forfeited their civil rights, such as a convicted violent felon. According to the republican political philosophy underpinning the Second Amendment, whether a person is "trained" in the use of a firearm, and thus fit to possess it, is a matter of self government, not subject to any fitness regulation of the government.

Herbert W. Titus
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller.
February 11, 2008
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

From NIU parents call for more gun control:

"Think of how many (people) are on anti-depressants in this country," she said. "If someone goes off their medication does that mean we should hand them a weapon of mass destruction to go and act out their despair?"

[...]

Jacob said she felt that more funding needed to be put towards mental health services.

"I think there should be more focus on mental health," she said, though she also believed in more gun control. "I don't think these kinds of guns belong in anyone's hands, sane or not sane. And law enforcement doesn't need these kinds of guns in people's hands."

John and Sharon Roszkowski, of Downers Grove, are parents of a student at NIU and came all the way to Skokie for the press conference. Sharon said she was primarily looking for what she as an individual could do to help prevent similar events from happening in the future.

"I think there are just too many shootings," she said.

The press conference didn't give her a good idea of what she could do, but at least, "I feel like I have a direction," she said.

A pump 12-gauge shotgun and a couple 9mm handguns are WMDs? And no one should have these kinds of guns? Then they should start by removing them from the police.

I especially like the part about not having a good idea of what to but yet she has a direction. Press conferences, emotion, and more government--that's what they do, that is their "currency".

How are they going to defend against this new binary explosive?

[Thanks to JoeyD Sr.]

Position 31 for Boomershoot 2008 will become available tomorrow morning, Tuesday February 19^th, at 6:00 AM PST (I think I have my alarm set correctly this time).

Shooting benches are recommended for this position. See http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Main for pictures of the location. Assuming your fingers are fast enough you can sign up for this postion via the online entry webpage of the previous link.

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles "a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills", and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
"On New Democracy" (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn't want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.--Joe]

I don't have the final information available yet but this is the premliminary report from the auction last night:

I'm not sure of the actual selling price, I thought it was $450 each but someone I spoke with said they went for $500 each.

Wow! $450 or $500 for participating in Boomershoot (and donating money to FONRA).

I gave them two positions but was asked to only mention there was one available. The plan was to auction off the one then offer the other position to the second place bidder for the same price.

I've been doing a little research into microstamping. High emotions on either side are not productive. I've tried to gather facts and sources for your own research.

This was instigated at the suggestion of Justthisguy in the comments.

First off I would like to point out there are two types of microstamping. Neither of which should be confused with "ballistic fingerprints".

The Technologies

Ballistic Fingerprints are Dead for Now

"Ballistics fingerprints" are a system where law enforcement obtains a bullet and cartridge casing from the manufacture for every new gun. Maryland and New York have passed laws requiring this and at last check not a single crime had been solved with this additional data and Maryland State Police were advising the money should be spent on something more effective.

Microstamping of Bullets

This concept is about putting matching serial numbers on the bullet, shell casing, and bullet box. Of course there would have to be a database that tracked the bullets from manufacture to the end user. It is impractical for many reasons.

I don't expect this to go anywhere in the immediate future.

Microstamping of Firearms

This is about putting unique codes (essentially a serial number) on the firing pin, breach face, ejector and extractor. Typically you will hear the example of the firing pin being marked but actually there will be markings in other places as well. Some people pretend it's a secret where these markings will be. Anyplace that strikes or presses against the shell casing is a potential location for imprinting the codes. This includes inside the chamber but those marking are at high risk of being sheared or smeared away in semi-autos during the extraction while there is still some pressure in the barrel and casing.

These codes will correspond to the serial number of the gun. The manufacture of the gun will be required to cooperate with law enforcement to find the distributor->retailer->initial buyer -- just like current firearm traces when law enforcement has the make, model, and serial number of a firearm.

This technology poses the greatest potential to be generally implemented and California passed such a law on October 13, 2007. This law mandates the technology be used on all new firearms sold in California beginning on January 1, 2010. It requires the microscopic codes be put in two or more places such they are transferred to the cartridge case.

For more information see Wikipedia on microstamping.

The Debate

Overview

The claimed benefit of the proposed technologies is the promise of making it easier to solve crimes committed with firearms.

The arguments against the use of the technology center on the ease of a criminal defeating the technology, the difficulty of manufacturers implementing it, the risk of innocent people being framed, and the increased costs to all gun owners.

Anti-gun advocates

Gun control advocate appear to be in favor of any restrictions on firearms and are in favor of all of the technologies. See also microstamping webpages for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and their PowerPoint presentation.

Pro-gun advocates

This report on a paper from UC Davis provides some support for the case against microstamping of firearms but probably made a lot of errors and should not be considered strong evidence for the case against microstamping.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. has a document on microstamping that outlines the problems from the manufacturer's viewpoint and the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners, and that it will not reduce crime. Other documents I found on the NSSF site probably have serious flaws and shouldn't be used as reference material.

Technology advocates

Todd Lizotte is a co-inventor of firearms microstamping. Here is a video of him describing and demonstrating the technology. He also commented on David E. Petzal's Field and Stream blog. I have extracted his comments from this blog and uploaded them here. One of his arguments is the following (a copy and paste with typos intact):

I am not sure a defensive strategy to protecting rights has ever worked. A proactive stretgy always keeps the fight off in the distance. Microstamping does not change the status quo, all data is at the manufacturer. No registration, no licensing and no imaging.

What many people are not aware of is there is a new 3D mapping imaging system being produced. We helped successfully defeat ballistic imaging for new firearms, however the ATF and its vendor are not giving up, the ATF has a $500 Million system in place for linking current ballistic imaging data from crime labs. The company who built that system, located in Quebec, needs to expand its market, it needs to capture the new firearm market.

The old system they built can not accurately imaging new firearms, however it is possible for the new 3D system to work at a much larger expense.

Microstamping neutralizes the need for imaging all togther.

In the end I am for being proactive, instead of being reactive.

If you want to see how bad it could really get, google 3D ballistic imaging and see how costly that system will be, since that system will require all info on the pruchaser and firearm to be entered into a government controlled criminal database.

I am not sure most people understand this fact.

Microstamping is a perfect technology --- completely benign and all data remains at the firearm manufacturer.

In essence of what he is saying is the alternative to microstamping the firearm is a much more expensive version of the "ballistic fingerprint" system implemented with better technology and the associated additional databases.

Conclusions

Because no new database is required, only an additional entry in the manufacturer's database with the serial number, firearm microstamping gets around a number of the arguments against "ballistics fingerprints" and bullet/casing microstamping. For this reason I expect the anti-gun people to push this technology the hardest and have the most success with it.

The best argument against microstamping of firearms is the manufacturing process does not lend itself to serialization of multiple parts. The firing pins are made by some supplier, the extractors, ejectors, and slides by other companies. The manufacture of the gun itself may just assemble the pieces. Each of the serialized parts must be matched with the frame that has the actual official firearm serial number. The code on these serialized parts are not visible without a microscope and all would have to be verified and recorded in database during the assembly process. This will make it expensive and error prone. This argument will not gain much traction with the anti-gun people because increasing the expense of firearms is not regarded as a problem.

The next best argument is probably that criminals can easily defeat the technology. This seems indisputable. Changing of firing pins, extractors, ejectors, and barrels is commonplace in the gun community. A few minutes with an grinding stone on a Dremel tool will obliterate the laser etching without affecting the functioning of the firearm. The counter arguments are somewhat weak; 1) Criminals aren't very smart; and 2) There are redundant markings.

The framing of innocent people is probably the weakest of the arguments against firearm microstamping. The powder residue and other forensic evidence will eliminate most planted shell casing from the real shell cases involved in the crime. Multiple stampings from reloaded shell cases also are probably easily eliminated with the available forensic evidence. It will slow down the process however, but probably no more than it would if they were to do it with existing forensic technology and this appears to be a non-problem. Of course this assumes the prosecutors and law enforcement are forthright and trustworthy in dealing with the evidence. I am inclined to believe this is generally the case but the actual instances of unethical actions of our government officials is much higher than I am comfortable with.

Pretty Pictures

The following pictures are from Forensic Technology and show the level of detail possible with modern microscopes.

Update: The following pictures are from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's PowerPoint presentation:

Primer after 2500 rounds through a Thompson SMG.
Glock firing pin after 1400 rounds (image reversed).
Primer from a Glock after 1400 rounds.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image from Glock showing smearing of the primer.

You may in vain mention to them the duties upon tea, etc. These things, they will say, do not affect them. But tell them of the robbery of the magazine, and that the next step will be to disarm them, and they will be ready to fly to arms to defend themselves.

Patrick Henry
William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Va. 1993), p. 279.
[If only it were true now.--Joe]

Silent, deadly, and never needing to be reloaded, these implements of destruction were designed for just one thing--rapidly cutting through flesh and bone. How many more must die before our government wakes up and bans these deadly weapons?

A Queens man with a history of mental problems was arrested Saturday in the vicious slaying of a psychologist attacked in her office with a meat cleaver, police said.

David Tarloff, 39, was taken into custody in the morning after investigators matched him with three palm prints found at the bloody crime scene, said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

[H/T to Rob for the email.]

[A handloader acquaintance who lives in Washington state was anticipating the extra hassles threatened by this microstamping bill (HB 3359). My comments are below.]

Don’t worry about it right now. From Joe Waldron’s GOAL Post 2008-4 email sent to wa-guns@yahoogroups.com last Saturday:

HB 3359 was assigned to House Judiciary for action. It was introduced just after the policy committee cut-off (Judiciary’s last hearing before cut-off was held on 5 February), so theoretically the bill will not be acted on. As noted above, cut-off dates are set by the legislature, and bills can be pulled from committee directly to the chamber floor.

There isn’t enough room in the GOAL Post to cover all the flaws in HB 3359! The bottom line is, as written, the bill would have a major impact on consumer ammunition costs AND on state bureaucracy, requiring significant staff expansion to meet record-keeping requirements.

(The anti-self defense lobby – the gun control lobby – is promoting so-called “microstamping” bills in eight states this year (most in the Northeast) and versions have been filed in Congress. While HB 3359 is unlikely to go anywhere this year, don’t expect it to just fade away. California passed – and Schwarzneggar signed – a bullet encoding bill last year.)

That said, if it passes you are still screwed because it explicitly includes bullets used for handloading (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3359.pdf):

"Pistol ammunition" means all ammunition principally for use
11 in pistols, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in
12 other firearms, including bullets used for reloading or handloading
13 pistol ammunition.

And it’s not just sold in state it’s imported as well:

Beginning January 1, 2010, all pistol ammunition manufactured in
8 the state, imported into the state, or kept or offered for sale, sold,
9 or transferred in the state, must be coded ammunition as defined in RCW
10 9.41.010.

I hope you didn’t miss this part:

(18) "Coded ammunition" means ammunition that carries a unique
32 alphanumeric identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base
33 of the bullet projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing and
34 that meets the following requirements:
35 (a) The base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing
36 of each round in a box of ammunition are encoded with the same unique
37 alphanumeric identifier;

I wonder if Dillon and other makers of reloading gear have the special attachments to engrave the appropriate alphanumeric identifiers. And the more interesting question to me is how the equipment will prevent you from duplicating the identifiers of ammunition used by the police…

From the "Gun Guys":

Yeah, I know I'm different. I'm not "normal". But what I want explained to me is why, when a bunch of helpless people were slaughtered, is it an appropriate response to huddle in a crowd with their heads down? They are emulating prey. And they are demanding that even more people be made defenseless as well. They are acting like stupid grass-eaters. Do they think this will somehow make it less likely for the predators to attack them?

I think it is just the opposite. I think the predators at a very primitive level, if not with total cerebrum awareness, recognize they are stupid and may even think they deserve to be preyed upon. What would the predators think if the response were for the gun stores shelves to be emptied and the ranges filled with people being trained and practicing?

See also On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs, Quote of the Day--Virgil, and Quote of the Day--Greg Hamilton.

The media figured out long ago that it’s a bad idea to show streakers and unruly fans at football and baseball games. When some idiot runs out onto the field in his birthday suit the cameras cut away and the announcers just comment that there’s an idiot screwing up the game. They never publicize the moron’s name or discuss his actions because they know that the publicity will just encourage some other moron to play copy-cat. For some reason they can’t maintain that kind of standard when mass murder is involved. They seek out the murderer’s family and friends, they publish their rants and photo’s and they give the bastards exactly what they want – fame.

I’m just a little-bitty corner of the media; a small voice crying out in the wilderness, but I will never again name a murderer or play a role in keeping his memory alive. I hope that others in the media will grow a conscience and do likewise. I don’t expect it, but I will continue to hope.

Jeff Knox
February 15, 2008
Copy Cats
The Firearms Coalition