If bans actually worked and guns were not available you would see more of this (warning–it’s very graphic!).
How fast can you draw and fire a shot? How much distance can an attacker cover in the same amount of time?
In answer to the first question 1.5 seconds is a reasonable estimate for most people. 21 feet is the answer to the second. Draw your conclusions and modify your behaviors appropriately.
Just a few months ago Fred LeBrun was saying things like this (see also my QOTD by him):
For the first time since 1935, with an all-Democratic national government, we are in a position to finally institute some meaningful and sensible gun control measures that will help mightily in regaining our cities from gun terror, street by street. Gun control doesn’t have to be a dirty word.
The centerpiece has to be a national identification system for handguns. A computerized system that would be accessible to all law enforcement agencies, and that would standardize the requirements for handgun ownership coast to coast. I am not suggesting anything radical in the slightest. In essence, it would be the system we have here in New York taken nationally, only with less waiting time for handgun permits.
Keep in mind that that “the system we have here in New York” is one of registration. And now he is saying:
The latest case in point is the absurd attempt by a few members of the Albany County Legislature to pass a local law requiring the registration of all ammunition sold in the county, and the recording of all the guns using the ammunition. Not just ammunition for handguns, which is already controlled by existing state law, but all ammunition for shotguns and rifles. This would be a radical departure for Albany County, and New York in general, which do not register or require a permit for these long guns.
Justifiably, this was seen as an awkward local attempt at backdoor gun registration, a hot button issue for gun rights advocates. They rallied fiercely against it, and vowed to work against the re-election of those who support it.
…
The proposed law itself was an ill-considered attempt that did more harm than good. It was deeply flawed from the onset and only managed to irritate a lot of people who would probably have gone along with public safety measures aimed at street crime.
Perhaps he is waking up to the reality of the RKBA as a specific enumerated right. The government can no more be trusted with a registration list of guns and/or gun owners than they can with a registration list of blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.
I received this just today which is too late for attending their hearing or sending in comments but via an email from Mike B. we have this:
Category A (Library Specific Violation)
…
Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (with a valid permit),
…
Category E (Serious Violation Toward Person(s) or Property)
…
Possession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property (no valid permit).
So what they are saying is that even though the State has said local governments may not regulate firearm possession the city library is going to do it anyway. They recognize the existence of carry permits but will not honor them.
It sounds to me like it is time for a lawsuit. Email to appropriate people is in the works.
It always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when one of my enemies stops by and sees what I have to say about them. I looked up the IP address from the Sitemeter visit description below and it resolved as being from Washington D.C. That combined with the search words “coalition to stop gun violence” leads me to believe it was the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence looking to see what I had to say about Josh Horwitz:
| Domain Name | (Unknown) | ||||||||||
| IP Address | 173.8.20.# (Unknown Organization) | ||||||||||
| ISP | Unknown ISP | ||||||||||
| Location |
| ||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us | ||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinNT | ||||||||||
| Browser | Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 | ||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.5 | ||||||||||
| Monitor |
| ||||||||||
| Time of Visit | May 28 2009 1:41:47 pm | ||||||||||
| Last Page View | May 28 2009 1:41:47 pm | ||||||||||
| Visit Length | 0 seconds | ||||||||||
| Page Views | 1 | ||||||||||
| Referring URL | http://blogsearch.go…ce&btnG=Search Blogs | ||||||||||
| Search Engine | blogsearch.google.com | ||||||||||
| Search Words | coalition to stop gun violence | ||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/05/27/quote-of-the-day-josh-horwitz/ | ||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/05/27/quote-of-the-day-josh-horwitz/ | ||||||||||
| Out Click | |||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-5:00 | ||||||||||
| Visitor’s Time | May 28 2009 4:41:47 pm | ||||||||||
| Visit Number | 514,094 |
Most of the time I’m not particularly surprised when I hear about bigotry against gun-owners. It’s pervasive, common, and often inadvertent. It is so common that people engage in it without realizing it because it is sort of a “conventional wisdom”. But this surprised me:
CCAC also told Brashier that the college must pre-approve any distribution of literature to fellow students, and that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, even insisting that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet.
Brashier reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she owned a licensed firearm and had ever brought it to campus (she has not), whether she carries a concealed firearm off campus, and whether she disagrees with the existing college policy banning concealed weapons on campus.
When Brashier stated that she wanted to be able to discuss this policy freely on campus, she was told to stop doing so without the permission of the CCAC administration. Dean Burns reportedly said, “You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us.” Brashier was then told to cease all activities related to her involvement with SCCC at CCAC and that such “academic misconduct” would not be tolerated.
I thought maybe the poor woman threatened with retaliation for attempting to exercise her first amendment rights had got a little carried away with the pamphlets the college demanded she destroy. But after reading one I was shocked. There is nothing in it that is even a little bit threatening or “over the top”.
It’s time for all advocates of gun violence prevention to stand together and demand principled action from our elected officials. Capitol Hill needs to receive a clear message—they cannot continue to ignore a majority of Americans in order to do the gun lobby’s bidding without paying a price at the ballot box.
Josh Horwitz
Email newsletter
May 26, 2009
Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
[Poor Josh, he’s such a Sad Panda. No one is listening to him anymore.
I’ve always wondered what “principles” they adhere to. It’s not some sort of advocacy of safety as they hint at on their web site. If it were then they would be able to answer Just One Question. It’s certainly not constitutional principles or freedom/liberty. As near as I can tell it’s some modern day equivalent of “We don’t want no damn n**gers around here.” It’s no wonder people don’t pay attention. Bigotry is such an ugly thing.–Joe]
The link between handgun legality and aggregate crime levels has little constitutional significance. The purpose of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is to allow individuals to privately protect themselves, not to reduce overall crime rates or curb gun-related accidents. … The framers knew that an individual right to keep and bear arms would carry with it the risks of crime and accidents, just as an individual right to speak freely carries with it the risk of libel. Faced with these trade-offs, the framers deliberately chose a form of government that can accept such risks as the price for protecting individual liberties.
Richard K. Willard
February 11, 2008
D.C. versus Heller
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent
[This one is for Lyle. Who, rightly so, says safety is irrelevant to the constitutionality issue.–Joe]
Robertson v. Baldwin declared “the carrying of concealed weapons” (presumably, handguns and knives) to be an exception to the Second Amendment. 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897). The exception proves the rule: that a ban on all handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. Similarly, Justice Holmes’ opinion in Patsone v. Pennsylvania upheld a state statute against legal aliens possessing long guns for hunting, because the statute “does not extend to weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defence.” 232 U.S. 138, 143 (1914).
The District’s current prohibition against handguns and immediately serviceable firearms in the home effectively eliminates a woman’s ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack. Women are simply less likely to be able to thwart violence using means currently permitted under D.C. law. Women are generally less physically strong, making it less likely that most physical confrontations will end favorably for women. Women with access to immediately disabling means, however, have been proven to benefit from the equalization of strength differential a handgun provides. Women’s ability to own such serviceable firearms is indeed of even greater importance given the holdings of both federal and state courts that there is no individual right to police protection.
M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
The credit card bill with the amendment for restoring our rights to keep and bear arms in national parks passed the Senate a few minutes ago:
_ Includes unrelated provision that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
It’s not a sure thing it will get passed into law yet but the chances aren’t too bad:
The 90-5 vote, following a 357-to-70 vote in the House on April 30, made it likely that President Obama will have a measure on his desk before the Memorial Day recess. The differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be worked out, but given the political atmosphere it seems likely that the House-Senate negotiations will move quickly.
Amazing. And this bill is much better for us than the ruling change the Brady Campaign shot down with the bogus “no environmental assessment study was done” lawsuit.
The Brady Campaign may have not only wasted their money but they may get a worse result for their efforts.
Be on the lookout for more Sad Pandas.
If the intent of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was to discourage the sport of hunting and competitive target shooting and to disarm Massachusetts citizens, it must be considered a howling success. In 10 years since its passage, the number of licensed gun owners has decreased from 1,500,000 to 220,000, an 85 percent drop, according to figures provided by the by the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee. Well done!
If the intent was to reduce crime, then that law must be considered a miserable failure. Based on incidents per 100,000, gun-related homicides are up 68 percent, assault related gun injuries up 72 percent, assault related hospital discharges up 160 percent, gun assault Emergency Dept visits up 222 percent and gun assault outpatient observations up 538 percent. Keep in mind that these increases occurred when there were 1,280,000 fewer licensed gun owners in the state.
In addition to not curbing gun crime, the legal gun owners have had to bear the brunt of additional costs and inconvenience, not to mention the constant character assignation that licensed gun owners receive. There appears to be a misconception that has been instilled into the public that everyone who owns a gun is suspect and is one to be feared.
Well, duh! It’s about government control not citizen safety. It always has been. It makes people feel safer. And for most people perception is reality. That and people will enthusiastically accept statements like, Just because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it. I’m with James on this.
The NRA just filed suit in San Francisco:
The City is being sued by gun owners and gun-advocacy groups because of a local law that says firearms have to be locked up or kept disabled.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court Friday afternoon, challenges a local restriction that forces handgun owners to either store their guns in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks. Mayor Gavin Newsom signed the law into effect in August 2007.
National Rifle Association attorney Chuck Michel, who filed the case, said the locking restriction interferes with citizens’ rights to immediately defend their families.
Plaintiffs include a group of San Francisco gun owners, retired police officers and the NRA.
“These are all people who recognize the right to self-defense is a fundamental civil right that needs to be protected as well,” Michel said.
The suit also tackles The City’s ban on the sale of fragmenting bullets, which break apart upon impact, and names Newsom and police Chief Heather Fong.
Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said locking up one’s guns is a matter of common sense.
“If even one life can be saved by this sensible law, it’s worth it,” he said.
Good! Keep attacking. Let’s see how many fronts the Brady Campaign can fight on compared to the good guys. The NRA alone is acquiring 100K new members a month. That doesn’t include CCRKBA, SAF, JPFO, GOA, Calguns, etc.
Mr. Ballard, as Jeff points out, needs to consider the lives lost because of the law as well as the lives saved.
Why do pro-gun folks refuse to accept obvious facts like these? Couldn’t they accept this data and still maintain their position on the 2nd Amendment? Why is it necessary to also deny the obvious? More guns means more gun deaths.
Mikeb302000
May 18, 2009
Gun Availability
[In answer to his questions–it’s because the “facts” he quotes ignores certain data points, such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, and because they are only measuring “gun deaths”. Justified (and praiseworthy) homicide are included and murder rate and violent crime rates are ignored.
It’s an anti-gun blog with open comments. I wonder how long that will last…–Joe]
One of the people participating at Boomershoot this year was a U.K. citizen. Via Facebook I found out the following:
I Got a call from the cops at 2300 last night, suggesting that I haven’t been shooting my guns enough.
It was the UK police on the phone, calling my US cel number. I have a UK firearms certificate – one of the requirements to keep my UK firearms certificate is that I must shoot every 12 months, and my UK rifle club just reported that I hadn’t done so… I told them that I’ve definitely shot in the past 12 months, so now I need to send them proof. This is, actually, the least surreal part of this experience.
So… in the land where handguns are banned and long guns are severely restricted the cops will call you and threaten to take away your firearms certificate if you haven’t been shooting enough.
Since I knew he had been shooting three inch square boxes filled with explosives dangling from paracord nearly 700 yards away just a three weeks ago I offered to confirm his story. He said if he needed my help he would let me know.
At times I think they just have a lot of gall, like a “group” (actually only one or two guys) calling themselves the Freedom States Alliance and advocating anti-freedom laws against gun owners. And other times I have to believe they are just totally off in la-la land:
The Parker Heller cases were a devastating defeat for gun rights ideologies [in part because those decisions affirmed that a wide range of gun control regulation is both constitutional and permissible and because they refused to adopt a strict scrutiny standard for future regulations]. If the gun lobby does not accept the opinions of the courts, the constitutional challenge to them is to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment. The cynical business of defeating legislation does not secure a constitutional right.
…
The Federal Government need do little more. That goal can only be accomplished by registration of ownership and reporting of private sales…
[The solution] is very simple: Resurrect the original militia concept and practices as manifest in the “Militia Act of 1792.” Registration for militia call-up—regardless that a call-up ever takes place—is a matter of military preparedness. It can have the added benefit of controlling the illegal traffic [in firearms]. We can call it the “Homeland Security Militia Reserve Act.”
The constitutional authority for such a national firearms policy is not the much overused Commerce Clause, but the militia clauses and the Second Amendment. Militia duty was conscript duty. Privately owned weapons were a public resource [used for] public duty. They were placed on inventories and reported to the president of the United States … Can the Judiciary Committee conduct a badly needed national civics lesson? There are no libertarian individual rights in a conscript military organization. After the Parker/Heller opinions there can be no constitutional objections.
Apparently they didn’t read the Heller decision. From pages 1 and 2:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
It’s amazing, absolutely amazing, what these people will convince themselves is reality.
The new president announced, among other things, that membership was increasing by 100,000 a month, and that over 10,000 new members had signed up during the convention.
David Hardy
May 18, 2009
Referring to the membership of the NRA.
Some notes from the NRA Board meeting
[100,000 new members in a month is probably more than the total money paying membership in any given year of all the anti-gun groups combined. What I want to know is how the side that only has about 2 to 3 percent as many members as the larger group can imagine the larger group are the “extremists”. I guess it comes with the territory. These are the same people that declare themselves to be “gun safety” advocates and have never even taken, let alone taught, a gun safety course.–Joe]
I made a comment on the CSM article about gun bloggers from yesterday. It hasn’t made it through the moderation process yet so I’m posting here as well:
Here is a blatant example of [what] mostly genius is talking about. At the end of the story, which is presented as a news article, is a notice that it was written by the Brady Campaign.
Susan Gill, it’s a logical hypothesis that more gun control would result in a safer society but the facts don’t support it. This is the basis of my Just One Question post. Before you advocate for more restrictions on firearms you need to answer Just 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?”
We have many, many examples of gun control in every state and in every country. You would think that with all those experiments in gun control that social scientists and criminologists would have data showing some benefits to gun control. No such reliable data exists.
As constitutional lawyer and criminologist Don Kates said, “The gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry.”
Susan, I’ll bet you have never fired a gun and perhaps don’t even think you know anyone who owns a firearm. I work in the Seattle area and would be glad to take you to the range to see what guns are all about. I’m a certified NRA firearms instructor and about 70% of my students have been women. See for yourself what the gun culture is all about rather than what you imagine it to be. Base your opinion on first hand facts rather “news articles” from organizations that are the 21st century equivalent of the KKK advocating for the elimination of a specific enumerated right.
Contact me via my blog (voted one of the top ten gun blogs of 2008) and I’ll supply the guns, ammo, and range fees.
Update May 18, 2009: There are 79 comments to the CSM article now. Mine has not shown up but I only counted two that are anti-gun and the rest are pro-gun so I cannot claim my comment was blocked because of the nature of my viewpoint. Perhaps there was a technical problem or it simply got lost in the flood of comments.
The citizen disarmament advocates may indeed eventually get their “terrorist” incident. The question is this: are they trying to forestall that, or to provoke it? At some point, some concerned patriot is going to wonder if it’s time to paraphrase Patrick Henry (one of the original “right-wing extremists”): “If this be terrorism, make the most of it.”
Kurt Hofmann
May 15, 3:56 AM
How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps
[Patrick Henry may not have actually said this, but Hofmann does ask a good question.–Joe]
Sebastian, Kevin, and others were quoted in the Christian Science Monitor today after being interviewed last night in Phoenix.
Bitter pulled The Josh Sugarmann Endorsement out of that article.
Great job guys! It makes me wish, even more, that I was there.
One of the first things I learned as a prosecutor is that ethics required me to seek justice, not merely convictions. The actions of the prosecutor in this case plainly violate that rule. It is because of unethical violations like this that I finally resigned from the bar in disgust.
PCV-Scott
May 13, 2009
US prosecutor admits error, hopes for 2d chance
[The prosecutor admitted the “error” of withholding evidence from the defense attorney but the judge says the entire Boston office has a “dismal history of intentional and inadvertent violations”. In my fight with PNNL my ignorant belief that lawyers would behave ethically was quickly smashed. Even my lawyer, with over a decade of law practice, was surprised at some of the stuff they did. In the Weaver/Harris case the prosecutors withheld and tampered with evidence and the jurors believed they destroyed evidence. This is in addition to telling Weaver the court date was a month later than it was actually scheduled. But they were caught at least twice in that case and the defendants were found not guilty. Who knows how many times they got away with it in that case and others? We know that a tremendous amount of evidence was deliberately destroyed in the Waco case. David has more comments on the Boston case and other examples of prosecutor misconduct. And I, like him, will now shut up before I say something I would regret.–Joe]