Quote of the Day

Duke University researchers embarked on a comprehensive journey to dissect the effectiveness of gun laws across the United States.  

Their focus? The relationship between stringent gun regulations and homicide rates. The results were unexpected—they found “no difference in homicide rates” between states with tough laws and those with more lenient ones.

Georgia Mckoy
July 12, 2024
Bombshell Study Finds Gun Restriction Laws Do Not Lead to Homicide Decrease Nationwide

See also the media release.

Anyone paying attention knew this decades ago.

But do they trust the science? See for yourself:

Gun ownership in America has surged, with over 82 million Americans now owning at least one firearm—a 28% increase since 1994.    

This uptick illustrates the growing urgency for effective gun regulation to keep pace with rising ownership rates.

In other words, “Gun ownership is increasing! No harm done! We must do something!”

These people are members of an evil, religious, science denying cult with an unshakable faith in gun control and the benevolence of government. They belong in the dustbin of history.

Quote of the Day

We still do not know about the shooter in this assassination attempt. However, we know all too well how unhinged people can find justification in the incendiary rhetoric of our politics. This moment did not occur in a vacuum; it occurred in a time when our leaders long abandoned reason for rage.

Jonathan Turley
July 13, 2024
Opinion: The attempted assassination of Trump is not nearly as surprising as it should be (msn.com)

It is not just the “leaders”. Rationality, if it exists, is just a thin veneer over the emotions in nearly everyone. The political currency of the left is almost nothing but emotion and violence. It is what they believe in and what they do.

As I have said before:

The Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.

Further evidence:

Quote of the Day

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, “Be thou a slave;” who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

Cesare Beccaria
An Essay on Crimes & Punishments, translated from the Italian with a commentary, attributed to M. de Voltaire, translated from the French
(New York: Stephen Gould, 1809), 124-25.

Emphasis added.

Via Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…(Spurious Quotation) | Monticello.

This has a lot of truth in it, assuming the legislator actually believes the utility of arms restrictions will make the general population safer. I suspect some do. But I am completely convinced many know this is not true and have evil intent in disarmament of the people. They want subjects to rule rather than be a servant to the public.

Quote of the Day

When a large slice of the public believes that crime is out of hand and most offenses go unpunished, some people inevitably take the law into their own hands.

Worryingly, we’re seeing more signs of that phenomenon in Chicago, with three separate episodes over the last weekend in which would-be victims proved to be both armed and willing to fire at their assailants. Four people who police said were attacking these concealed carry holders were shot and wounded, all of them critically.

…

But the majority of Chicagoans, we’re convinced, don’t feel any safer when they read stories of good-guy-with-a-gun responses to street crime. They may feel some satisfaction when street criminals feel the same level of fear their would-be victims do. But overall, it’s not a healthy environment in a city — where by definition people live close together — when gun-packing citizens become more the norm than the exception.

This is not to pass judgment on those who for their own protection go through the steps necessary to get a concealed carry permit and then take advantage of the legal rights that license gives them.

…

Surely, our public officials, no matter what side of the criminal-justice-reform divide they’re on, can agree that the growing risks of more ordinary citizens taking responsibility for their own safety at the point of a gun isn’t a healthy development.

The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune
June 6, 2024
Editorial: Potential victims are shooting back. This should raise alarms for Chicago public officials. (yahoo.com)

Even ignoring that someone shooting in self-defense is not “taking the law into their own hands”, this is a little warped.

It seems as if they really want to say how bad it is that people can carry guns to defend themselves. And if only public officials would do their job then we could get those icky guns out of the hands of the unclean common people without so much fuss.

Quote of the Day

The National Rifle Association is not what it used to be, and that’s created a gap. And what has gone into the gap are a bunch of further-right organizations that are trying to take the mantle of the NRA by being as extreme as possible. Foremost among them is the Firearms Policy Coalition. Friday was a real moment for them. It’s one of the most extreme groups; it uses extraordinarily violent rhetoric. And it’s putting out material that’s getting blessed by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court. You have to take a step back and look at where we are—I don’t think that’s anything you could imagine happening even 10 years ago.

David Pucino
Legal director of the Giffords Law Center
June 15, 2024
The group rewriting America’s gun laws for the Supreme Court Is Worse Than the NRA. (slate.com)

I was already convinced the FPC deserved my support. You don’t need to oversell them.

I know I shouldn’t be surprised but I was amazed at the projection, lies, and deception presented in this interview. Here is an example:

Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion is rooted in historical misrepresentations and utterly implausible manipulations of the statutory text.

The link leads to these claims:

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the court tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands.

…

Thomas adopted a highly technical interpretation of the statute that does not align with its text. A “single function of the trigger,” he wrote, does not mean a single pull of the trigger, but rather a complete “cycle” of the spring-loaded hammer inside the gun. Because the hammer (rapidly) resets to its original position between shots, Thomas concluded, “bump firing” involves more than “a single function of the trigger.”

Deception and lies. It what they do because it is the best they have to bring to the debate.