Category Archives: Freedom

I can’t wrap my mind around this stuff

Posted on by

I just finished this book over the weekend and while there are many aspects that I am skeptical about some things resonated well. One thing was that struck me was that the psychology of progressives (r selected populations in his terminology) is in a large part about “equality”. Gun control can be interpreted as government mandated equality of victimization. Everyone must be equally vulnerable. It is “unfair/unjust” that some people be able to protect themselves better than others. It is better than victims of violent crimes be selected at, essentially, random than for some people to be able to avoid and/or defend against criminals. If you are successful in defending your self you must be punished.

The case below via the author, Anonymous Conservative, could be a case in point:

A homeowner in Finland has been sentenced to four years in jail and a hefty fine after fighting off three intruders who attempted to rob his house. The thieves, meanwhile, got lesser prison terms and are to be paid damages by their victim.

In April, a 35-year-old man from Hyvinkää, a town just 50km north of the Finnish capital, Helsinki, heard a knock on the front door of his suburban house and rushed to open it. As soon as he unlocked it, three strangers rushed in and launched at him, toting baseball bats and a gun. The man retreated to the kitchen, where he found a knife and with it was able to overpower the intruders, two men and one woman.

…

The homeowner has been convicted of “excessive self-defense and attempted manslaughter,” Helsinki news reports. He will serve an unconditional sentence for four years and two months, which he has to spend in prison. The man also has to pay damages to his attackers, with the fine totaling €21,000 (US$23,000). The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.

…

All three received one-year-and-two-month conditional sentences, which is similar to probation or house arrest in Finland, depending on the case. The offender serves the sentence outside of jail, but has to follow strict jail-like rules.

The trio was also ordered to pay the homeowner damages, but their combined fine was ruled to be €3,000 (US$3,300).

A friend from the U.K. once explained to me that over there you were allowed to defend yourself as long as you used proportional force. If your attacker was using their fists you couldn’t use a knife. If they were using a knife you couldn’t use a gun, that sort of thing. I asked about a large man attacking a much smaller or weaker person. What then? Well, “It depends…”

I totally reject such thinking.

In the free areas of the U.S. if someone is using deadly force against an innocent person then you are allowed to use deadly force, of whatever type, against your attacker. The attacker could have both hands cuffed behind his back but if he has your kid on the ground and kicking them in the head and you would be justified in using a .50 BMG on full auto against him (take care not to hurt innocents yourself).

In my book the home intruders in the case above should have been made to pay for not only the damages done to the home or people, the lost time spent cutting up the bad guys and dealing with the police, and replaced the knife.

Quote of the day—Ed Driscoll

Posted on by

Hillary’s entire career has been dedicated to taking things away from you “on behalf of the common good,” to borrow from her rare moment of candor in 2004. It’s the intellectual milieu she’s been steeped in for her entire adult life.

Ed Driscoll
July 18, 2016
HILLARY EMBRACES LIBERAL EXTREMISM
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Sign of the times

Posted on by

Seen recently.

Fingerprints should not imply uniqueness

Posted on by

News you can use:

For over 100 years, fingerprint evidence has been used as a valuable tool for the criminal justice system. Relying on the generalized premise of “uniqueness”, the forensic community has regarded fingerprint evidence as nearly infallible having the capacity to “individualize” the source of a fingerprint impression to a single individual. While the uniqueness of a complete record of friction ridge skin detail is generally undisputed, the extension of that premise to partial and degraded impressions has become a central issue of debate. Nevertheless, forensic science laboratories routinely use the terms “individualization” and “identification” in technical reports and expert witness testimony to express an association of a partial impression to a specific known source. Over the last several years, there has been growing criticism among the scientific and legal communities regarding the use of such terms to express source associations which rely on expert interpretation. The crux of the criticism is that these terms imply absolute certainty and infallibility to the fact-finder which has not been demonstrated by available scientific data. As a result, several authoritative scientific organizations have recommended forensic science laboratories not to report or testify, directly or by implication, to a source attribution to the exclusion of all others in the world or to assert 100% infallibility and state conclusions in absolute terms when dealing with population issues. Consequently, the traditional paradigm of reporting latent fingerprint conclusions with an implication of absolute certainty to a single source has been challenged. The underlying basis for the challenge pertains to the logic applied during the interpretation of the evidence and the framework by which that evidence is articulated. By recognizing the subtle, yet non-trivial differences in the logic, the fingerprint community may consider an alternative framework to report fingerprint evidence to ensure the certainties are not over or understated.

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Posted on by

It would be a good idea to stop using the term “unintended consequences”. I haven’t see a consequence in years that I could reasonably assume to be unintended. Thinking of them as unintended will only mislead you about the nature of the opposition.

Paul Koning
July 18, 2016
Comment to Govt proposed “Smart-gun” specs
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Maura Healey, dictator of Massachusetts

Posted on by

Maura Healey,attorney general of Massachusetts, wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe and said:

Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year…

Interesting. In just one year 10k a particular class of guns were sold in the state. Since that class of firearm has been around for well over 20 years there must be something on the order of 100K or more of them in the state. That must mean those type of guns are “in common use” and protected by the Heller Decision, right?

And how many crimes were committed with those firearms? She doesn’t tell us of any in the state of Massachusetts. She mentions just four in the entire country over the span of several years. Commenter Doverham (07/20/16 10:28 AM) tells us:

How many people a year are killed with “assault weapons” in MA – isn’t that a relevant number to know before deciding whether this is actually worthwhile or meaningful? I will give you a hint – that number was 2 in 2013, 1/17th the number killed with handguns, 1/30th the number killed by distracted drivers.

Yet she thinks this is justification for banning all of them. What other specific enumerated right, exercised by 100K+ people in your state, could someone justify the infringement of by four crimes committed in other states and two in your own? If that is all someone has to have for justification for infringement then who knows what she will demand be banned next? If that sort of rational passes logical and constitutional muster then she, or the next attorney general, can easily justify the banning of Islam, Democrats, or people with dark skin.

She also said:

On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

Ahhh… there we have it. She knows she can’t get the law changed through legislative channels so she just dictates her desires. And if a gun “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” it will be prohibited. That will be “fun” to determine and enforce. I would if she considers ammunition a “component”. And what about a scope, flashlight, rail, spring, peep sight, or bipod?

Also note that she thinks guns have “operating systems”. Dictators don’t have to know what they are talking about. They just have to have people with guns willing to follow orders.

Update: See also what Sebastian has to say about it.

Update 2: See also John Richardson and Say Uncle.

Update 3: See also Thirdpower.

Save lives! Ignore the Bill of Rights extremists

Posted on by

It occurs to me that we need some common sense regulation to prevent the tragedies in Orlando and Dallas. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact and the 1st Amendment extremists need to compromise for the safety of everyone.

The five dead and nine wounded in Dallas was predictable, preventable, and should never happen again. All it would take would be a small amount of compromise by the extremists in this country who refuse to consider the most common-sense measures that almost everyone can agree on.

Nearly the same thing can said about the 49 murdered and 53 wounded in Orlando last month. Something like that is entirely predictable and preventable.

Here’s what everyone with a shred of common sense can obviously agree on:

  • The whole “black lives matter” talk should have been shut down as soon as the emotions started getting hostile. Yes, the 1st Amendment says we have a right to free speech but that was before social media, text messages, and email. Bad ideas can travel so fast that people don’t have a cooling off period before a critical mass has formed and we have mass demonstrations before the hot heads get a chance to think thing through. The 1st Amendment was fine when mass distribution of dangerous ideas by common folk meant standing on a soap box in the town square and hoping someone would listen to you.
  • There are virulent strains of both Christianity and Islam are literally deadly to the LGBT community. Again, the 1st Amendment is perceived as a block to common sense regulation by the 1st Amendment extremists. But that was a time when homosexuality not seen for what it is. We now know that, at worst, it is minor quirk of nature in expression of one’s sexual desires that is almost entirely harmless. It’s time to put an end to the violence. All reasonable people must agree that all writings and speech which speak ill of alternate expressions of sexuality or gender must be banned and vigorously rooted and and destroyed. Yes, people have a 1st Amendment right to religion. But there are lots of religious to choose from which are not so dangerous. And the extremists almost never mention the first part of the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” My common sense proposal doesn’t establish a religion. It merely bans a small subset of religions that are incompatible with modern day society. So how can my proposals possibly be considered as an infringement? It’s just common sense.

Thousands of lives each year of depend upon these sort of common sense laws. We can respect the 1st Amendment and yet save countless lives every year if we don’t let the extremists get in our way.

[end sarcasm]

Hillary’s inauguration day

Posted on by

Via Tyler Durden:20160712_inaug_0

Nope. I think the Clintons and most of the people around them are so comfortable lying on a regular basis that it wouldn’t even cross their minds there is something ironic about taking an oath defending the constitution. In their minds, the restrictions on government by the constitution are no more real than that moral restrictions imposed up them by the divine dictates of the three eyed, flying, spaghetti monster.

Quote of the day—Michael Krieger

Posted on by

In my writings, when I first came out of Wall Street, I focused on debt, I focused on economics and I focused on financial markets. I did all of that stuff, but I stopped doing that for one simple reason. It was obvious to me . . . that this thing had only one way to go, which is a complete collapse of everything. We’re going to need to start over. There’s too much debt. There’s too much corruption. There’s too much BS. There’s too much war. There’s too much everything that is bad in this world, and debt is one aspect of it. Are we going to have to wipe out the debts one way or the other? Of course, we will. I guess the reason I have stopped talking about that and writing about that is because it is so obvious. So, what I have been doing over the last three years is getting people aware and engaged on everything, not just the economics, but the political corruption. Every single industry in this world is basically hitting peak corruption, peak shadiness, peak violence and peak everything. So, it’s not just the debt or the economies that are going to collapse, it’s everything, the political establishment and the social fabric. All of these things we have been living under our entire lives will be replaced by something else. . . . The only question is, are we going to get something better or are we going to get something worse?

Michael Krieger
July 3, 2016
Disintegration & Overthrow of Global Elite Regime-Michael Krieger
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Noah Smith

Posted on by

What liberated us? It might have been the printing press, or capitalism, or the sailing ship. But it might have been the gun. And if it was the gun that liberated us, then we should be very worried. Because when the Age of the Gun ends, the age of freedom and dignity and equality that much of humanity now enjoys may turn out to have been a bizarre, temporary aberration.

Noah Smith
March 11, 2014
Drones will cause an upheaval of society like we haven’t seen in 700 years
[We all know that the gun is civilization so that condition is met, but it’s not entirely clear to me that drones will eliminate the power of the gun. And drones are in the hands of private citizens as well as the government so it’s not a complete loss of power by the individual even if drones somehow make guns essentially obsolete.

But it is something to think about and I think a very real concern. Especially since the government is ahead of the curve some and is requiring registration of drones in this country. They missed the window of opportunity on registration of guns but they nailed it on drones.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rolf Nelson

Posted on by

I don’t know what the solution is, but historically speaking: resets that occur when that which cannot continue, doesn’t are messy. Very messy. Voting for either of the bifactional pro-State ruling parties is not going to help, because neither of them are dedicated to the ideals or ideas set out in our founding documents, or espoused by our founding fathers. They do not even seem to understand them.

Interesting times are afoot, and those that are easily offended are going to see what “going all the way to 11” really means before too many more years have passed.

Rolf Nelson
July 4, 2016
Happy 4th
[I could see this being a prophecy which comes true.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

They’ve got hate, and a holy mandate to build Utopia – on our corpses, if history is any guide.  We’ve got a populace that knows something is wrong, but has been robbed of the education necessary to grasp exactly what and then reason themselves out of the problem by the same forces that are intent on building that Utopia.  Instead, a significant portion voted for Donald Trump, mostly out of sheer frustration.  Another example of pressing the “Fuck It” button.

This does not bode well for us.

Kevin Baker
July 4, 2016
Pressing the “Fuck It” Button
[Kevin and I have had private conversations on this, more than once, into the wee hours of the morning. I tend to think he is a bit too pessimistic and he thinks I am too optimistic.

I suspect we are getting scary close to finding out who is more nearly correct. Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dianna Muller

Posted on by

As I watched that first debate, and I heard Hillary Clinton answer the question about her enemies, my mouth dropped to the floor. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard from someone who wants to lead this country. She just called 5 million law-abiding Americans her enemy, and she was proud of it! Of all the atrocities going on in the world, we are what she sees as an enemy? 

In this day and age, when we are constantly being lectured on “acceptance” and “tolerance” of people who don’t look or act like us, how is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to call out gun owners as enemies? This seems like textbook bullying tactics—maybe worse. Her comments segregate, demonize, blame, and suggest that we don’t have common sense if we disagree with what she and her anti-Second Amendment cronies define as “common-sense gun control.”

Dianna Muller
oc_a1fd_enemiesmuller_main_7-6
22-year Tulsa Police Department veteran and professional 3-gun world champion.
July 6, 2016
Hillary’s Enemies List: Dianna Muller
[Of course the NRA and gun owners are at the top of her enemies list. We are in a 5th or 6th Generation War. We must recognize this and respond accordingly or we will be defeated and probably handled just as leftist have treated their defeated enemies in the past.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Posted on by

The truth is quite simple. IslamoNazi ideology is spreading like a cancer across the globe. The only way to defeat this scourge is on the battlefield, and through effective counter propaganda.

America accomplished these twin goals in World War II — by reducing Germany and Japan to ashes. Half-measures are doomed to failure. The only language radical Islam understands is the language of brute power.

And apparently, the only language the Democrats understand is Orwellian Newspeak.

Robert J. Avrech
June 21, 2016
Democrats Believe Orlando Massacre is America’s Fault
[While I agree with most of this there is a difference between WW II and now. We are now in a 4th generation style war which is primarily composed of violent non-state actors instead of nation states. Our response to the asymmetric war we are in must be different than that of WW II. My hypothesis is that the best response will involve an increase in the non-state actors on our side as well as our traditional military forces. My vision of our non-state actors are private citizens able and willing to deliver firepower to the enemy in the first few seconds of an attack.

Defenseless innocent people are an invitation to attack. Politicians who disarm people via “gun-free zones” should be considered guilty of treason in the time of war and treated as such.—Joe]

No charges for Hillary

Posted on by

The FBI is not recommending charges be brought against Hillary. But it’s still pretty damning:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

…

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Can someone who is that careless with the security of our country be trusted in any position of government? Well, I might give consideration to her taking a position of a toilet scrubber in a public park.

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Posted on by

Sadly, as in the case of this robot, and the broader struggle for freedom, there will always be those who will feel an uncontrollable urge to destroy anyone and anything which seeks to plot its own course.

It would be funny if one day, in the battle for freedom, it was libertarians and artificial intelligences working together to destroy a government of leftist rabbits.

Anonymous Conservative
June 25, 2016
What Is Libertarianism? Perhaps A Rebellion Against Obstacles
[While it certainly seems to be true that there will always be those who cannot tolerate freedom I don’t see the humor in the circumstances he describes. And while some governments require destruction before they can be replaced with something which respected human rights I’m not entirely comfortable with “destroying a government” just because it’s leftist. Reforming it and limiting it such that it is compatible with freedom, sure, but probably doesn’t require destruction. Nation states without a functional government are not particularly hospitable to peaceable, productive, human activities.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Harry Schell

Posted on by

Either you match a dispersed threat with a dispersed capability to respond, or you lose…

Harry Schell
June 16, 2016
Comment to Decentralized response to decentralized threat.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tina Dupuy

Posted on by

I’m a free speech extremist. I believe the government has absolutely no business regulating or censoring speech. Of course, commercially popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s only unpopular—racist, sexist and vulgar—speech that requires it.

…

Why is this basic freedom important? Because whomever decides what speech is hateful or distasteful, ultimately becomes the arbiter of our discourse. Then we’re all at the mercy of ever-morphing taboos, mores and, yes, political correctness.

And just for clarity’s sake: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee immunity from the repercussions of speech. Your boss firing you for tweeting something off-color doesn’t make you a First Amendment martyr—it makes you unemployed. Also, my telling you to shut up isn’t infringing on your freedoms. My telling you to shut up is also my right. It’s the government telling you to shut up that’s infringing on your freedoms.

Tina Dupuy
July 29, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s Stand Against Religious Freedom
[I’m with her on this. And I extend this rational in regards to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Only when the rights of others are infringed should the government step in. People inciting a riot, or falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the classic examples of unprotected speech. There is no excuse for preventing the speech. This is called “a chilling effect” on speech and is unconstitutional. And so it is with preventing “gun violence”. Only when someone is actually put in danger of illegal injury (to their person or property) is it valid for the government to take action.—Joe]

How is this not a felony?

Posted on by

I often claim people are in violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 242 and know it will almost certainly not result in even a sideways glance from a prosecutor.

But via Alan Korwin we have something that has me baffled.

This is from HR2578 (“To authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists.”):

No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…

The writers of this have to know they are attempting to create a law that will be thrown out as unconstitutional. Otherwise they wouldn’t care if it were reviewed by the courts for constitutionality. Right?

If they are knowingly working together to infringe upon rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then tell me how a prosecutor can squint their eyes, twist the meaning of words, and claim what these people are doing is not a conspiracy to deny rights?

For your easy review 18 USC 241:

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

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

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

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

These people need to be prosecuted.

The mask drops

Posted on by

So, my Former Classmate I talked about the other day came back and posted a rant on Facebook:

Personally I don’t like guns and superbly do not agree that there is any NON military need for many types of guns available to just anyone.
But what I am absolutely sick to death of is the flaccid guns laws in place. And just as sick of the blockade the criminally financed fucking NRA puts up against any laws that would make harder to buy a gun.

If you are TRULY a responsible gun owner what is your big bitch with doing what CAN be done to mitigate murder by gun?

Your …crappy example of what happened in Paris ( sad as it was) is poor at best when you look at ALL the stats. Gun ownership and gun murders by country.

The USA has the highest gun ownership AND the highest death by gun.
IF IF IF you are a responsible gun owner then keep your bloody masterbatory toys but you MUST know the ease with which you bought them was just wrong. And you know you have gun owning friends that pushed just a tad would roll a full bubble out of plumb.

If if if you want to be a responsible gun owner then support laws that might make it a modicum harder for assholes like the Orlando murderer to get guns.

Oh……and my heartfelt condolences to the “responsible” gun shop owner that offered conceal and carry and gun handling classes. He was shot to death by one of his students because some “responsible” person loaded live vs rubber bullets into the students gun.

I found this very telling. The insults, the demands that gun owners “MUST know” things which she believes. She has an extremely low opinion of gun owners and demands control over them. The mask dropped. She wants to be a tyrant and she is dehumanizing gun owners to justify whatever “whatever it takes” to get her way.

I responded with:

Do you really want to have this conversation with me?

Her response:

No. I did not.

Mine:

You have some options to consider because I won’t be quiet while you insult the nation’s oldest and (probably largest) civil rights organization, the NRA and their 5+ million members. And “bloody masturbatory toys”? Really? You think 100+ million men and women have exercised their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms for masturbation? I think it’s very telling you use insults instead of facts and logic.

As I see it you have the following options available to you.

1)    You can unfriend me. This, of course, would mean that you know your stated beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2)    You do not bring up the topic again. This probably means you don’t have confidence in your position.
3)    You engage me in a civil discussion on the topic. As someone told me recently, “Rare on FB”.
4)    You ignore me as I dissect your hateful rants.
5)    You research the facts and admit you were wrong.

Your choice. What’s it going to be?

I waited a couple days and then yesterday she made another post, addressed to no one in particular, apologizing for being so hateful.

I responded to that post, thanking her for saying that. I also responded to her rant:

I’m tired of the gun laws in place as well. What part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t people understand?

But beyond the snark let’s think about this some.

Terilyn wants to make it more difficult to buy guns so there would be less “murder by gun”. This motive is either deliberately deceptive or naïve. The method of murder is irrelevant. What matters is the total murder rate and, more broadly, the violent crime rate.

Private ownership of guns makes self-defense against a younger and stronger attacker feasible. Guns are an equalizer. If criminals have difficulty acquiring guns they will substitute other weapons or chose easier victims. And let’s imagine making guns the most difficult to acquire as possible. Let’s imagine banning them completely. Would that prevent criminals from getting them?

We know the answer to this. How difficult was it for people to get alcohol during prohibition? Or how difficult is it for the average high school drop out to get recreational drugs? That’s right, they can probably score whatever they want within an hour 24x7x365.

Banning guns will be no different. And the harder you make it to obtain guns the less likely innocent people will go though the effort to purchase them and become skilled in their use. And that means they will be less likely to have a gun to defend themselves when they really need one.

So how can anti-gun people claim gun restriction are a good thing? It’s by being deceptive or naïve and only talking about “gun murders” or “gun crime”.

When comparing violent crime of ALL TYPES in other countries to the US we get a much different picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html.

The violent crime rate per 100,000 in a few other countries (from the late 2000s) is as follows:

UK: 2,034
Austria: 1,677
South Africa: 1,609
Sweden: 1,124
Belgium: 1,006
Canada: 935
Finland: 738
Netherlands: 676
Luxembourg: 565
France: 504

So care to guess where the U.S. fits in there?

….

According to the article I linked to it’s 466. You can verify the US numbers with the FBI here: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

We have still further means of verifying that private gun ownership in the U.S. is not a problem. Look at the rate of gun sales (millions per year) compared to homicide, violent crime, and accident gun deaths in the attached picture.

CllsSS-WYAAjBsc

Correlation does not prove causation. But a negative correlation certainly proves that “easy access to guns” cannot be blamed for murder and violent crime.

We have still other means to test the claim that “flaccid gun laws” are a problem. I have been asking a question for over a decade now. And many others, including the CDC and the Department of Justice, have been asking it in slightly different forms without being able to find an answer that agrees with those who want more repressive gun laws. The background for the question can be found here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/

The question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer turns out to be, “No.”

That question is so popular among gun rights activists that I was asked to put it on a t-shirt (available here: http://www.cafepress.com/theviewfromnorthcentralidaho ).

So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty. I’ll leave that for everyone else to think on and we can discuss it another time and place if desired.

I checked Facebook this morning to see if there was any response. There was. I’m glad I kept a copy of almost everything because I no longer have access to her posts on gun control.

Terilyn Reber, Orofino Idaho High School, class of 1973, chose option 1). Reasoned Discourse.