Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Thomas Sowell
October 14, 2014
SOWELL: The ‘gun control’ farce
[As usual, Sowell expresses things succinctly and powerfully. Nearly every paragraph in this article is worthy of being QOTD here.

What Sowell doesn’t say, no surprise since it’s out of scope for his article, is that increased gun ownership increases the distribution of hard facts to the population at large. And since hard facts are detrimental to the objectives of the anti-gun crowd anything they do which increases gun ownership in either the short term or long term decreases the odds of them achieving their goals. Hence when politicians start talk about restricting gun ownership, and gun sales dramatically increase, they are indirectly their own worst enemy.

Instead of doing “battle” with those who advocate on social media for the restriction of our right to keep and bear arms maybe we should thank them for increasing gun sales and exposing more people to the hard facts of gun ownership.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bay Area Official

No one wants to touch the legitimate hunter. But we’ve got to protect society from nuts with guns.

Bay Area Official
1967
[Via Friday A/V Club: What the Gun Debate Looked Like in 1967.

After nearly 50 years of increasingly strict laws, now with some of the most repressive gu laws in the nation, the words they use are nearly the same. California has banned the most commonly sold rifles, used by hunters, sold in the U.S. and yet they never stop pushing for more.

It stops here. It stops now. And we are reversing the trend.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

If it does get to the point that “Constitutional Carry” is the law in all 50 states, we will still have to be vigilant, the forces of slavery never rest.

Windy Wilson
October 12, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Richard Beary
[I have nothing to add.Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard Beary

Talking about firearms now is like talking about race. These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it.

Richard Beary
Chief of police for the University of Central Florida
President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
October 9, 2015
Gun Debate Divides Nation’s Police Officers, Too
[Also of interest from the same article:

Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.

“And now you’ve really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly,” she says. “That’s been a major shift.”

She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn’t cause a big increase in shootings.

Back in the 90s there were discussions about whether the concealed carry permits were something we should push for or not. The argument boiled down to “The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit”. If we concede that we have to ask permission to carry a gun they can, at some later time, deny us that permission. The only principled thing to do is to push for “Vermont carry”.

Had we gone the “principled” versus practical route my guess is we would be in a much worse situation than now. Now we have concealed carry in all states and are making progress toward constitutional carry in a significant number of states. We made progress because we were able to change the culture. We were able to change the culture at the national level because we were able to show we could be trusted with guns in public in states that were gun friendly.

I despise politics because principals and rules (such as the constitution) simply don’t matter. But politics is how laws are changed and politics are the art of the practical and the possible. And that is the path to victory. You do whatever works to get closer to your goal. You get acceptance from the culture. Then you do it again to get another step closer to your goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Hardy

It’s just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she’d support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.

David Hardy
October 9, 2015
Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
[I LOL’d.

But the reality is that Hillary is saying she regards the NRA and gun owners as terrorists and if she acquires the power she will treat us as such.—Joe]

Gun grabber dream

Via Sebastian and an email from Barron we have Josh Marshall demonstrating he has crap for brains as well as honesty:

We’re now actively debating things that no civilized country has ever even contemplated – the right to take a semi-automatic weapon into a family restaurant or shopping mall.

Nope. That debate was over years ago. We have concealed carry (theoretically, even if it is impractical in some cities or states) in the entire country. Since this guy clearly doesn’t know or care to know what he is talking about you can safely dismiss everything else he has to say except this:

yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Dear Josh,

Molon labe. I’ll be ready. Will you?

Your move.

Regards,

Joe

Quote of the day—Joeann Edmonds-Matthew

Please really think about guns and what they do. They KILL and that is all they do. Also the right to bear arms is for a militia and does not include Automatic weapons.

Joeann Edmonds-Matthew
October 5, 2015
In response to this comment to Oregon Shooter’s Mom Is A Paranoid Gun-Hoarder Who Taught Her Unstable Son To Love Guns
[This is what they think of guns and the right to keep and bear arms. It is total crap for brains on full display. And they want us to “really think”?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brief of NRA

Inherently, any firearm can be used for either offensive or defensive purposes. The performance capabilities that cause many firearms to be adopted by the military also make them a preferred choice among the American people. The inextricably intertwined history of parallel use by both the military and civilians necessarily means a firearm’s military heritage cannot foreclose its civilian use.

BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—RD Copeland‏@RD_Copeland

@andreagrimes first gun nut I see in the grocery store gets slapped up side the head and his tiny penis (aka gun) taken away.

RD Copeland‏ @RD_Copeland
Tweeted on March 17, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via email from malroadkill.

Apparently Copeland does not realize they are announcing to the world their intention to commit the crimes of assault, battery, and theft. This also demonstrates Copeland may someday have an excellent chance to earn a Darwin Award.

All of this should surprise no one. Nearly all anti-gun people have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—enlightenment

I really wish someone would start seriously wondering why having private, for-profit companies running – and ruining – the lives of millions is a good thing.

At the very least, there should be serious limits put on their role in society, because at this point, they own us all.

enlightenment
October 1, 2015
Comment to Experian says 15M have info stolen in hack of T-Mobile data
[“enlightenment” thinks serious thought should be given to eliminating private, for profit, companies? I presume that the functions performed by private companies for everything from the food supply and health care to banking, communication, manufacturing, and transportation should all by done by the all powerful, benevolent government, right?

I don’t think there has been any other political system than that which I suspect “enlightenment” desires which has been more thoroughly tested or found to have inflicted more evil upon society. In the 20th century alone there were hundreds of millions of people murdered trying to make such systems work.

People such as “enlightenment” cannot possible have a mind that functions in any sort of way that I think of as normal. The overwhelming evidence of the errors of their thinking can only mean they have total crap for brains. That such people exist, in apparently large numbers, means the right to keep and bear arms is just a critical to the security of the free state today as it was 200+ years ago..—Joe]

Fisking the modern man

The New York Times posted some drivel about ways to be a “modern man”.

Numerous others have weighed in on this:

I say a modern man is user of tools and has the right tool for the jobs he needs to do (see items 16 and 25).

If there were no guns

It’s common for ignorant people to claim society would be better off if there were no guns in the hands of private citizens and some go so far as to say no guns at all. We then frequently explain young, large, thugs would run roughshod over the small, old, and docile. But I think a stronger case may be made by regressing only as far as the iron or bronze age rather than an age before tools.

One of the more recent genocides was largely committed by people with machetes, clubs, blunt objects and other weapons. It is easily demonstrated no guns are needed for mass murder.

It is said one man with a gun can control a hundred without one. But the odds are probably not much different for one well trained man with a bronze sword and shield.

If the next mass murdering nut job really wanted to get notoriety they would use a sword and shield. I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t get an even higher body count because they would be much quieter than those who would use a gun. And never forget that you never need to reload your sword. Swords, for all practical purposes, have an infinite capacity compared to any firearm.

Taking this even further we realize that one, fit, and well trained swordsman is probably the equal of a half dozen or more weak, poorly trained swordsman. Strength, endurance, and training matter more with primitive weapons than with firearms. Firearms are a great equalizer. One elderly, frail, person with minimal firearms training has a decent chance against a couple of thugs, even with guns, as they attempt to invade a home.

Because of this great equalization power it dramatically reduces the need for thuggish “protectors” for the less strong. Dealing with others of near equal power then becomes a process of reason rather than an exhibition of force. The more equal the power the more important the ability to convince and reason with others. It is my belief that those that would have us disarmed do so because of their frustration at being unable to reason well. They long to be in a position to force us to their will. It is in their nature.

Because of this change from a society of force to a society of reason one could, and should, go so far as to say the gun is civilization. Those who claim “civilized countries” are disarmed have it exactly backward.

Quote of the day—Vladimir Lenin

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.

Vladimir Lenin
Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union
[To remove guns from the hands of private citizens is to make them easier to control. Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bryn Mickle

Make semi-automatic weapons illegal. The Second Amendment crowd can keep the muskets that our forefathers were carrying when they came up with right to bear arms.

Put a ban on high-capacity magazines. It won’t prevent drive-by shootings but it will create a pause if you have to reload after six shots.

Bryn Mickle
October 1, 2015
More billboards won’t fix Flint’s violence problem — gun control will
[Mickle should read the Heller decision before he proclaims what “The Second Amendment crowd” can and cannot do.

Don’t every let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Not a gun-free zone this time

Update: As more information becomes available it’s clear the campus was “gun-free” by policy even though not by law. Students and campus employees were defenseless by college decree. Those who made and enforced such a despicable policy should be accountable for the deaths they enabled.
End Update.

Don’t spout off about the mass murder happening in another “gun-free” zone too soon. The details are not entirely clear yet. It wasn’t in a government mandated “gun-free” zone but it could have been campus policy that discouraged carry by students and staff.

From John Lott:

5 states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses.  These states are Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin.

According to Students for Concealed Carry there are 206 colleges that allow this.  Here is a partial list.

26. UMPQUA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

But there is speculation that state law allows it but the college will discipline employees and students who exercise their rights. So perhaps only visitors can safely carry on campus without risk of being fired or expelled.

Quote of the day—Andrew Cuomo

If the far right is willing to shut down the government because they don’t get a tax cut for the rich, then our people should have the same resolve and threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get a real gun control law to stop killing of their innocents.

Andrew Cuomo
New York State Governor
September 26, 2015
Gov. Andrew Cuomo Tells Democrats to Shut Down Government Until They Get Gun Control
[He wants people to shut down the Federal Government in an attempt to get what he wants?

Don’t make any promises you aren’t willing to keep!

A less active Federal government is what we want! Shutting it down means no Federal gun law enforcement during the down time. If the NICS system is shutdown then just about anyone can get a gun without a background check (with a three day wait).

These people have never been known for the rationality and this is just another example.—Joe]

The path forward

Lobbying and money in politics only gets you so far. It nudges government in a one direction or the other but changes in the mindset of the people is what makes the real differences. On the gun issue we are taking new shooters to the range and creating more gun owners. We can legally carry guns in public in all 50 states (theoretically, in some jurisdictions it is still impractical or even impossible in practice). Crime rates are dropping as gun ownership increases. And most importantly the mindset of the general population is changing:

According to Quinnipiac, when asked, “Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?” 48 percent of all voters responded by opposing gun control while 45 percent responded by favoring more.

When broken down by parties, only 16 percent of Democrats opposed more gun control. A full 76 percent of Democrats–roughly 3 out of 4–want more of it. Republicans were just the opposite, with only 23 percent supporting more gun control while 73 percent–roughly 3 out of 4–oppose adding more laws.

Independents oppose more gun control by a margin of 49 to 45.

I haven’t done the math so it’s a little difficult to know what this means for the electoral vote count for President. It could be that the Anti-Gun Presidential Candidate is only looking at the short term to the nomination and will attempt to switch directions after the nomination. But we need to keep doing what we are doing and create more and more gun owners. Give or sell cheap your old guns to people without guns. Give them some skin in the game when a politician tells them how they are “a minority of people that hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people”. That’s right. Some politicians believe that just holding a viewpoint terrorizes people. Such politicians are not fit to be on a government payroll and the more gun owners there are the less likely they be successful in gaining power and if they are successful the less likely they will be to impose their anti-freedom agenda upon the good people of this country.

Quote of the day—George Reisman

Our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are essential measures of gun control—this time, gun control directed against the government. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedoms of speech or press. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedom of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Indirectly, the Second Amendment also operates to limit the government’s use of its guns to abridge freedom in general. This is because, in our system of checks and balances, an armed citizenry constitutes a check on the possibility of the government becoming tyrannical and attempting to use its power to threaten the citizens’ lives and property. It should be understood as protecting a balance between the power remaining in the hands of the people and the power they have delegated to their government. Indeed, the language of the Second Amendment—“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—should be understood in this way.

George Reisman
September 25, 2015
Gun Control: Controlling the Government’s Guns Part 1
[I have nothing to add other than to say, “Read the whole thing.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lonnie and Sandy Phillips

We hope that we are spearheading a movement to expose these egregious and unconstitutional laws for what they really are. They are an attack on our civil liberties. With these laws in place ordinary citizens are effectively barred by the exorbitant cost from bringing any civil action against sellers of firearms and ammunition.

Lonnie and Sandy Phillips
September 25, 2015
We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer
[They believe the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is an attack on their civil liberties and is unconstitutional?

I only have a small inkling of they pain and suffering they are going through with the loss of their daughter. They have a tremendous amount of sympathy from me in regards to having their daughter murdered. But I’m not going to remain quiet when they go all crap for brains on us and confuse, in essence, up from down, black from white, and right from wrong.

They should be seeking the services of a grief counselor and not attempting to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Berlincopa @Berlincopa

@PC_Banned_Humor Ok, you need it as phallus replacement @ZeitgeistGhost

Berlincopa @Berlincopa
Tweeted on February 23, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from LowRider ‏@PC_Banned_Humor.—Joe]