As we have said for years and years laws restricting access to firearms can be no more effective than the laws that restrict access to recreational drugs. We now have a report that literally says that about California which, according to the Brady Campaign ranks as the top state in the nation with the “strongest gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of guns without background checks and reduce risks to children” (plagiarized from here):

Respondents pointed out that getting a gun is “as easy as access to drugs.” This climate of ready gun availability led a service provider to observe that “it seems harder for adults to get legal access to guns than for kids to get illegal access.” This surprising information regarding the ease of youth access to guns is supported by data from the 2007 California Healthy Kids Survey, in which 4.8 percent of San Mateo County 7th, 9th, and 11th graders reported having brought a gun to school, a rate similar to that for the Bay Area overall (5 percent).

Got that? It is harder for adults to legally exercise a specific enumerated right than it is for children to get illegal access.

What if it were more difficult to lawfully purchase a Bible than it was for kids to get a copy of Hustler magazine? Do you think the laws would change?

It’s time most firearm laws were repealed and politicians who defend them sent to prison.

Bigoted members of the public in Sunnyvale California wanted “special attention” given to “Stand-alone Firearm Sales Businesses”. Sporting goods stores that happen to sell guns were okay but if a store was primarily a gun shop they had a problem with it. Something about children walking by it caused them to think for themselves and put the harmony of the collective at risk or something. I have to wonder if they had the same sort of problem with kids walking by a bookstore.

In any case after some “encouragement” from Michel & Associates on Tuesday the city council stood up to the bigots on the issue.

Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62×39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.

David Voth
ATF Group Supervisor
June 1, 2010
Letter implicates ATF in committing straw purchases for Gunwalker

[These guns, purchased with U.S. taxpayer cash without a 4473 so as to be off the books, were given directly to the drug trafficking organizations by an ATF agent. There was no straw buyer.

I’m a pretty creative guy but I’m at a loss at finding a reason why someone would think this was a good idea unless their sole objective was to create justification for more strict firearm laws. I consider this to be on the same ethical plane as someone committing crimes in face paint such that they appeared to have black skin in order to justify laws against blacks.

The people responsible for these misdeeds need to be brought to justice. They probably wouldn’t pass muster in a constitutional challenge because of the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” but I have some very creative potential sentences running through my mind right now. —Joe]

From reading James Higham’s post we get this:

All things being equal, the English [and British] population have not been particularly gun-oriented, compared to the Americans and we like to think we can solve everything by negotiation, relying on the friendly bobby on the beat to take care of the occasional naughty person. “Allo, allo, what’s all this then?”

It occurs to me that the liberals in our society have a strong tendency in the same direction. Many liberal politicians insist we should “talk out our differences” rather than utilizing force on both a personal as well as international scale.

While I agree it is much preferable to have a verbal exchange before exchanging blows, bullets, or ballistic missiles the verbal exchange is doomed to failure unless both parties are in positions of some power. That power does not necessarily need to be a physical threat. It doesn’t even need to be a physical action. It could be something as nebulous as “I won’t like you anymore” or something like the shame of violating someone’s trust.

The less power you have during the negotiation the less favorable your outcome. If you are much weaker physically and unable to bring additional forces to the “negotiation” the psychopath wanting to rob or rape you isn’t going to spend a lot of time “talking out the differences” in your two positions.

In tribes of up to a few hundred people physical force isn’t even needed. The community bonds and dependency are so strong and important that violating the rules of your tribe is very rare. Only in intertribal conflict is force a necessary component in conflicts. Crime in societies where individuals and small groups can be anonymous and autonomous is much much higher. The victims have much less power in the “negotiations”.

Many people apparently do not understand, are unaware, or are unconvinced of this fact. It’s easy to hypothesis why they don’t. Humans and proto-humans spent millions of years in small tribes and only a few thousand years in the much larger groups and only a few hundred years in cities with more than a few hundred thousand people. Many of the people advocating individuals give up their arms are feeling the impulses of very primitive urges that evolved millions of years ago. It feels like the right thing to do because the instincts were correct until the last few thousand years. The phrase “it takes a village” is appealing because of this instinct.

Things have changed. It’s time people realized it. This is Why the Gun is Civilization. It brings equilibrium to the negotiations.