No wonder the police and the politicians in Philadelphia want the citizens disarmed: Philadelphia cops use badges to exhort sex.
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day–Donald L. Cline
Liberty is a hollow joke without an armed populace to protect the rights of all.
Donald L. Cline
August 14, 2006
Gun laws only help criminals
Springfield via Memphis via Minneapolis
We were supposed to be in Springfield MO by now. But our plane to leave Seattle arrived 40 minutes late. It took off well over an hour late (taxiway congestion). We arrived in Minneapolis about 10 minutes after our connecting flight to Springfield was scheduled to leave.
The airline (NWA) put us up in a very nice room with free ground transportation, meals, and small overnight kit (they locked up our luggage for the night). Tomorrow morning we get a wake up call at 4:00 AM (2:00 AM my time) to catch a shuttle ride back to the airport where we catch a flight to Memphis and from there we go to Springfield arriving almost exactly 12 hours later than we planned..
Barb is stressing a little bit but as long as I do the interacting with all the wonderful service people that have been so accommodating we’ll do just fine.
I am annoyed with the hotel here, they have a policy of no guns on the property. This appears to be in accordance with Minnesota law. But since I don’t have my gun with me (it’s locked up at the airport) I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much this time. I’ll leave them one of these cards in the morning:
Quote of the day–Douglas MacArthur
Appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.
Douglas MacArthur
1880-1964
American general
Address to Congress
April 19, 1951
[Communists, Islamic extremists, or anti-gun owner bigots it still applies.–Joe]
Knife control
From the U.K. via the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies comes this study, ‘Knife Crime’: Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy.
The PDF document is protected such that I can’t copy and paste but some hand typed excerpts are worth the effort:
Government and the police lack a coherent, evidence-based, reasoned strategy for dealing with knife carrying and knife-related offences. There is insufficient evidence that a knife amnesty or increased sentence length for carrying knives will decrease the level of knife use and carrying. Due to the easy availability of knives, there will always be opportunities to commit knife offences. Since it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit the availability of knives and knives are merely a tool used in violent crime, success in fighting knife usage will only come with success in dealing with the underlying causes of violence, fear and insecurity.
This is mostly correct and applies to firearms as well as knives. What I disagree with is the last few words. And it is these last few words that are critical to solving the problem. They have an incorrect problem statement. This shows, conclusively, they don’t understand the problem. If they don’t understand the problem then they can never solve it.
They believe they have a violence problem and they are attempting to make it more difficult to commit violence. This is totally wrong. They have a violent crime problem. The only solution (assuming we are talking about ordinary crime and not sometime like a rebellion that is labeled crime by the ruling class) to violent crime is violence, or the threat of violence, against the criminals. This is what the police do when they arrest someone. They use violence or the threat of violence to remove the criminal from the general population.
The “underlying causes of violence” are more numerous than “fear and insecurity” which also shows they don’t understand the problem. I’m shocked the author didn’t at least throw in “poverty”. But even then he would be leaving out the really big issue, evil in the hearts of men. It is only with this last issue can you explain such things as rape and extortion.
So a better problem statement is that they (and we) have violent crime problem for the most part because some people are evil. I will grant that as poverty (the definition of which is tenuous at best) increases crime tends to increase as well, but that is a topic for another day.
The solution becomes much more obvious with an appropriate problem statement. The dominant root cause is “some people are evil”. The problem can now be broken down into identification and “elimination” (either by incarceration or other more violent solutions) of the perpetrators or “persuading” the potential criminal to not act out their evil inclinations. And as Al Capone said when discussing persuasion methods, “You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.” And this basic truth is what the people in the U.K. have overlooked with their faulty problem statement. Further compounding their problems is that they have disabled the most effective identification and persuasion mechanism available by disarming the victims of violent crime.
It may be that they will eventually figure out the error of their ways. For example the study points out the folly of the “knife amnesty” program as follows with the stereotypical British understatement:
According to the Home Office, at total of 89,864 knives were handed in during the national amnesty. Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated that this means “fewer knives on our streets” and greater security for everyone. Assuming that there are approximately 22 million households in England and Wales, each possessing a single kitchen knife, the amnesty has been successful in removing 0.0041 of the knives that might be used in crimes. Of course, most households contain many more than a single knife and it is barely worth considering the tens of thousands sitting in shops waiting to be purchased. As such, it is, at best, questionable whether this will result in a reduction in knife carrying and knife-related offences.
Further evidence that they might be getting a clue is this part of the conclusion:
At the moment the government seems to be planning action to a problem without knowing the full and true nature and extent of it and whilst overlooking the causes.
The author has a clue, but just barely. But really, there is Just One Question that needs to be asked.
Quote of the day–Chris Eades
The Government is constructing responses without any credible evidence that they will be successful. Knife amnesties will have a negligible impact since knives will be available as long as there is unsliced bread.
Chris Eades
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
‘Knife Crime’: Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy
From The Independent: Big rise in knife crime despite tougher penalties
[First they came for the guns…–Joe]
Mental problems
I can’t get away from it. It has to be mental problems. Do they even realize what they are saying?
…it’s also a symptom– a symptom of a culture that believes guns can be safe, a culture that believes teenagers can be trusted with firearms.
The truth is that no one can be trusted with firearms. They represent a threat, all the time, every time. This study makes it clear that things need to change– the only way to protect children from guns is to get the gun out of the houses they live in.
And here:
Guns are dangerous everywhere– why should we think a gun is any safer when it’s in a park rather than a church or a school? The guns don’t change. The people carrying them don’t change. Concealed weapons aren’t safe anywhere, because, as history shows time and time again, no matter how much training or discipline a gun owner has, a gun still represents a dire threat to everyone around it.
Evidence apparently doesn’t matter. I have Just One Question.
He should volunteer to live in a place where the police don’t have guns. Oh, that’s right, there is no such place. I guess that means he yearns for a place that doesn’t exist. Some imaginary world where everything is as he wants it to be rather than the way things are. I suppose it could exist for a while. Britain survived for a while without the police having guns on a regular basis. But look where they are now. They saw the folly of that and they have now have teams with guns available on short notice and one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world.
Situational awareness
This weekend Barb attended a class in Spokane. We stayed in motel and I ran errands and worked on the computer while she attended class. Saturday while out walking around on my errands I noticed that just a block or so from our motel there were a large number of vagrants hanging out under the freeway and the neighboring parking lots (I-90 and Division street). One approached me and asked for a dime or a quarter. Greg Hamilton describes this as an “interview”. I apparently failed the interview and did no further business with him.
Later that evening we walked to a restaurant for dinner past the same area. On the edge of the parking lot of a drive-in burger joint (Dicks) several vagrants nearly had the sidewalk blocked. We took a path through the middle of the parking lot to reach our restaurant (Frankie Doodles) that adjoined Dicks. Barb and I were talking but I was watching out of the corner of my eye. The largest of the vagrants stood up and followed us about 20 feet behind and to our left which put him in a position to close the distance if we returned to the sidewalk. For thirty feet or more he matched our speed and direction. My gun was between Barb and I and not in danger of being blocked by him if he chose to attack. I could deploy and utilize it if needed. But at his range he could probably get a first strike in before I could get off a first shot. But why wait for an attack? I’m not a grass eater, he needs to know that. I snapped my head around and looked directly at him while continuing to walk. He immediately stopped and developed an intense interest in something on the ground.
Later returning to the motel they were still there and we gave them an even wider berth. They paid us no interest.
Quote of the day–Alan Korwin
Access taxes and proficiency tests for exercising your rights are very much alive for black Americans, and all Americans, if you wish to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.
Alan Korwin
August 04, 2006
This is what happens in places without guns–Case XIV
From Michelle Malkin:
A disabled war hero and his wife were assaulted and robbed in Bethesda, Md., a few weeks ago.
The guy lost an arm and a leg in Iraq and five punks mugged him and his wife. If one or both had been armed things might have turned out differently. Maryland, however, doesn’t trust it’s citizens to carry firearms to defend themselves except under rare circumstances. Hence being outnumbered or out-sized is an invitation to the predators on the street.
I agree with Sarah Brady
From the Washington Blade:
“It’s a shame in this world that both in the area of gay rights and in the area of gun issues that these should be political issues,” Sarah Brady says. “These should be common sense, human decency, public safety issues, not political footballs.”
The bipartisan approval that the Brady Bill ultimately achieved is something that she would like to see occur in the realm of gay rights, Sarah Brady says.
“We were able, in the ‘80s and ‘90s, to bring the two parties together for public safety and that’s something which is beginning to happen in the gay community as well,” she says. “It should not be a hot-button issue. It should be common sense and the right thing.”
I fully agree neither issue should be political footballs. Common sense and scientific facts should bring us together for the elimination of the Brady Act and other unlawful, immoral, and hazardous restrictions on our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms.
He got a job
The other day I posted about a friend not getting a job after being asked bigoted questions about his gun ownership. I bumped into him again on Thursday. He now has a job with another company. This company didn’t ask any questions about his personal life during the interview.
He asked if I was interested in working there. For now I’m not. I’m happy with my job and my co-workers and no one has even hinted my interest in guns and explosives is a problem. I’ll keep my eyes open for warning signs though.
Quote of the day–Chief Justice Morrison Waite
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
[In response to “The Gun Guys“. Remember that rights are guaranteed or infringed. They are not granted. Only privileges and permissions are granted.–Joe]
Lawyers and gun owner rights
There has been some interesting research on the correlation between lawyers and gun owner rights. Here is the conclusion:
Lawyers contribute primarily to candidates who vote against gun rights. Most of this money ends up in the pockets of Democrats, who exhibit a heavy bias against gun rights. Interestingly enough, the Democrat party is the one that claims to represent the little guy, while a special interest group comprised of economically-elite professionals encourages Democrats to pass more laws limiting the right of self-defense for people who cannot afford private security guards. It’s time for those who believe in traditional Democrat values to take a closer look at their party.
My own research on a closely related topic supports this conclusion. I’ll post the details on my research at a later date.
A new instructor
Keith Tyler is teaching firearms classes now. I used to shoot with him when he was going to college at WSU in the ’90s. We both went down to Lewiston to shoot the USPSA (IPSC) matches at the Lewiston Pistol Club. He was always a very fast shooter. His accuracy sometimes left a bit to be desired but since he is a Grand Master (Open Class), and Master (Limited and Limited 10) I suspect that weakness has been corrected.
There is talk of getting him to visit the Lewiston Pistol Club for a weekend class sometime this fall. If you are interested let me know and I’ll forward your message to the appropriate person.
Official “Conventional Wisdom”
I just had a long and very interesting chat with a man, retired from the Air Force, who served in Korea among other places, then spent several years as a government inspector for M-14 rifle production. He could rattle quite a bit of fascinating information off the top of his head (I took notes) but one thing struck me as odd: He seemed to be completely unaware of both the NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934 and the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986. A forgivable “offense” I suppose, but interesting from one who had had a career in handling “machineguns”. He was under the assumption, as are many citizens, that machineguns in the hands of peaceable Americans are illegal. Anyone casually interested in such things can take a clue from the acronym, BATF. A machinegun is much like a carton of cigaretts or a bottle of whiskey– their possession is said to require an accompanying tax stamp. Also take note of the fact that BATF is a branch of Treasury. They are (ostensibly) a tax authority.
For anyone interested in Second Amendment politics, please take a look at this analysis of THE FIREARMS OWNERS’ PROTECTION ACT. You will get some insight into that hideous, chilling muddle with which we in the industry are faced and, I think it important to point out, what John Moses Browning, among others, was not. FOPA was a simplification, mind you, of previous law.
For those of you at all levels in law enforcement; you need to know a little about what’s been going on, from the coup of 1934 until now, so that collectively we can begin taking the steps to restore American’s full civil liberties.
When I was getting fingerprinted at the local sheriff’s office years ago for an NFA weapons transfer, the deputy taking the prints saw the “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms” title on the forms and asked me if I was applying for a job. I told him, “No. This is an NFA weapons transfer.” Previously chatty, he clammed up and said no more, obviously knowing nothing about such things. He probably thought I was a super-spook, paramilitary international arms dealer working on the sly for Ollie North or some such, and he wasn’t going to ask any questions. I didn’t try educating him on decades of political and legislative history, either.
40 years ago today
Charles Whitman made history. Both sides of the gun debate use the example for their case. The anti-gun people because he killed 15 people and wounded 31. The pro gun people because private citizens started shooting back and kept him pinned down while the good guys got in position to finish him off.
The link above is a factual retelling of the tragedy. It’s good reading.
[Sent to me by Meredith who is a student at the University of Texas.]
Stupid policies and laws
Xenia was downtown with Sara yesterday when a woman identifying herself as a newspaper reporter for the Daily News approached them and asked if they were high school students and if they would mind talking to her about cell phones in the school. They had a nice conversation and Xenia called me shortly thereafter to tell me I might be getting a call about cell phones in the schools.
I received the call earlier this morning. And one of the first questions she asked was if I had any comments on the school policy against cell phones with cameras. I asked if they had a policy against ordinary cameras in the school. They didn’t. So I told her I didn’t think it made any sense to have a policy against cell phone cameras. One is allowed and the other isn’t. What sense can that make? Besides what’s the problem with cameras anyway? She expressed her opinion that there was concern about cameras being in the locker rooms and bath rooms. Yeah, I can see why they wouldn’t want pictures taken in those places but it’s just like gun control.
They don’t seem to get it. If someone is going to violate a rule against behavior that is obviously wrong and will be punished if the perpetrator is caught then what makes them think a rule against possessing the object to begin with will be honored? The possession is a victimless crime. Victimless crimes shouldn’t exist.
Liquid armor
This could be very useful. Lighter and tougher body armor. It will never take the place of defensive weapons but I would consider wearing body armor on a regular basis if it were cheap and comfortable enough. I carry my handgun whenever I can but in many cases you may end up taking the first hit before you are able to take the attack to the aggressor. And of course there are those times when I’m not allowed to bring my defensive tools with me and body armor might allow me additional time to bring my hands and/or feet into range and absorb the attack while I’m delivering my own.
A horror flick I endorse
I don’t care for horror flicks. I don’t find it fun to be scared. In most cases the victims do some really stupid things and avoid doing things that would obviously improve their odds of surviving until the end of the movie. However, here is a horror video that is “more like it”. Via Clayton and Arms and the Law.