Tags
Admiral Yamamoto, Amy Siskind, anti liberty/gun cracktivists, AR-15, assault weapon ban, assault weapons, Boulder attack, court packing schemes, D/S/Cs, high capacity magazines, Meena Harris, President-in-waiting Kamala Harris, second amendment, Suprem Court, Temporary President Biden, unalienable rights
With the murders of ten people at a market in Boulder, CO, the aftermath was predictable. Rational people of good will—Normal Americans—prayed for the souls of the dead and for the comfort of their survivors. They prayed for the salvation of our Republic, that mankind’s last, best hope should not perish.
Democrats/Socialists/Communists were also predictable. They have reflexively tried to use a heinous crime and an unimaginable tragedy for hundreds for political advantage, to deprive Americans of essential liberty. Surrounded by a fence, barbed wire and thousands of soldiers, to say nothing of one of the largest police forces in America and innumerable personal bodyguards, they seek to deprive the law-abiding of the ability to protect themselves and their families, even as they seek to abolish the police and all but abolish punishment for criminals. Mostly, and most importantly to them, they want to disarm the public so they cannot act as the Founders intended in writing the Second Amendment: to rise up and overthrow a despotic government, which they are in the process of establishing.
Temporary President Biden, or more particularly, his handlers, immediately began a renewed push for “common sense” obliteration of express, unalienable rights, as Breitbart.com reports:
He also called for an ‘assault weapons’ ban.
Biden admitted he was making his comments before information on the gunman was fully known, saying, ‘While we’re still waiting for more information, I don’t need to wait another minute, let alone an hour, to take common-sense steps that will save lives in the future, and to urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act. We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again.’
‘I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was the law for the longest time. And it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again,’ Biden remarked.
Once again, there is reason to be concerned for Biden’s memory and rationality. The Clinton gun ban was in effect for ten years, and when it sunset, even the most rabidly anti-liberty/gun Democrats dared not seriously try to revive it. They dared not because their votes for the ban caused an electoral Democrat blood bath in two elections. Biden is also wrong—who knows if he realizes he’s lying?—in stating the law had any positive effect on crime:
Ironically, the Department of Justice’s Institute of Justice (NIJ) released a report following the 1994-2004 ‘assault weapons’ ban and noted that no real reduction in crime could be credited to the ban. The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, ‘We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.’
I’ll not go into great detail on the issues revolving around this attack. Those details will emerge in the next few days and weeks. The exact type of weapon used by the shooter, who was injured, though captured, remains unconfirmed, but it’s an article of faith it must have been an AR-15, which is the gun used in all such crimes, except that it’s mostly not. I’ll not mention the shooter’s name, which is a long-standing policy here at SMM. I’ll note Biden is threatening to obtain via executive order what he can’t get by law to enact D/S/C anti-liberty/gun schemes. As he has no idea what he’s actually signing, it’s possible he has already signed such orders, which are waiting for the right time to be released.
oops…
Before anyone knew anything about the attack other than that one occurred, the usual suspects, including the D/S/C media propaganda arm, were authoritatively proclaiming the pre-written, universal narrative, as noted in the header photo: the shooter must be a white male, hence a white supremacist, which all right—left—thinking people know is the greatest existential threat to America, right behind climate change which will surely doom the world in 11 or so years even when it doesn’t.
Meena Harris is President-in-Waiting Kamala’s Harris’ niece. She’s obviously down with the narrative. Amy Siskind is a well-known D/S/C figure on the Internet. Like virtually every other D/S/C who immediately ran with the evil white guy narrative, she was forced to hastily, and in many instances comically/pathetically, erase, alter, or otherwise “fix” her earlier comment:
We learned rather quickly the shooter is a 21-year old Muslim, who has serious mental issues, a criminal record, and who was “known to the FBI” though his association with someone else. Translation: his name likely came up in an anti-terror investigation. We’ve also learned he is not only an ISIS supporting Muslim, but very much a creature of the American Left. This caused widespread use of irony and other mockery among Normal American Internet commentators:
Wretchardthecat is referring to D/S/C-media cognitive dissonance, such as that experienced in the Trayvon Martin case. In that case, as in the Boulder case, the media was absolutely certain George Zimmerman must be an evil white guy, because who else would chase down and brutally murder an innocent, budding pilot and scholar who was only trying to bring his little brother tea and Skittles? At that point, they hadn’t yet latched onto “White Supremacy,” though “racism” and “racial profiling” were in common, hysterical, hyperbolic use. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered Zimmerman was Hispanic and actually part Black, so an entirely new racial class had to be conjured, and Zimmerman was dubbed a “white Hispanic.”
In the Boulder case, the cognitive dissonance is monumental, and as this is being written, a new formulation has yet to be announced. Muslims are a D/S/C favored victim group who, for maximum political advantage, are not allowed to be thought of as “white”–not all Muslims are Arab, but it’s the narrative that matters–and this particular murderer could easily pass for white. Worse, not all Muslims are terrorists, but virtually all contemporary, actual terrorists are Muslim, so what to do? How can this shooting be blamed on white supremacists—it will surely be blamed on Trump, the NRA and every Normal American, law-abiding gun owner, including the hundreds of thousands of non-white gun owners created in the last several years by D/S/C policies—if the shooter can’t be labeled a white guy, hence there can be no hint of white supremacy? For now, they’re falling back on the old reliable:
I have no idea why learning the correct term for “AR” would change anyone’s mind regarding policy, but we’re not dealing with rational people. I suppose this, from the indispensable Babylon Bee, is next:
So we’re left where we always are when such horrific crimes occur. D/S/Cs demand the usual gun control schemes despite knowing none of them would have in any way prevented the attacks they cynically use to manipulate public opinion and deprive Americans of liberty, which would inevitably result in greater governmental power. With a brief period of contemplation, the public realizes this, and political discourse settles down to the usual anti-liberty, background grumbling.
I’ll leave this with one final bit of insight, which is not new; I’ve often covered this before. Considering very few crimes are committed with rifles of any kind (from 2015- 2019, about 2.6% of total firearms of all types) considering knives are used in far more crimes (2015-2019: 1533 compared with 215), and considering AR-15 type rifles are used in only a tiny portion of the crimes committed with the use of long guns (the UCR doesn’t provide this specific breakdown, but past statistics have indicated something the area of 2% of 215, so a bit over four in five years), why are D/S/Cs so desperate to ban AR-15 like firearms? Considering magazine capacity is essentially irrelevant—magazines can be changed easily within 1-4 seconds even by non-professionals—why are they so desperate to ban them?
For decades, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists have tried to trick Americans into thinking any gun that resembles a machinegun—a select fire, fully automatic weapon—must be a machinegun. ARs outwardly resemble their military counterparts but are not machineguns, however, their superficial resemblance is thought helpful to D/S/C banning efforts, which is why they have latched onto ARs. Even though far more crimes are committed with the use of handguns, there are many millions more of them in private hands than ARs, and they were expressly mentioned in Heller as constitutionally protected firearms in common and usual use.
Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists believe if they can ban any individual category of firearm, or a specific, highly popular accessory—so-called “high capacity magazines” which are actually standard magazines—the door will be open to bans of further classes of firearms and accessories. If they can ban “assault weapons”—a class that can only be defined as “whatever gun D/S/Cs are trying to ban today”—how much better will be their argument for banning handguns, which after all, are involved in the deaths of far more than assault weapons? “High capacity magazine” bans are equally cynical as a first step to paring capacity down by steps until nothing is left. If 17 is too much today, 10 will surely be too much tomorrow, and so on; it’s for public safety, you know.
Oh yes: law-abidng Americans continue, year in and year out, to use firearms to stop criminals and save lives, from a million to two million times, usually without firing a shot. Of course, this isn’t the narrative, so shut up, you racist, white supremacists.
Let us also keep firmly in mind criminals don’t obey the law–any law–which is why they’re called criminals. It’s lunacy to imagine anyone contemplating mass murder would be in any way deterred by any gun law. Unfortunately criminals are a key D/S/C constituency, so all “gun control” efforts must be directed at the law-abiding who threaten no one.
By the way, should you wish to see if America is truly a uniquely violent country, awash in “gun violence,” take this link to a classic Bill Whittle video which reveals the inconvenient truth. Also take this link to discover actual mass shootings are vanishingly rare, not at all what D/S/C media propaganda would have us believe. Mark Twain said :
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
His point was one can make statistics say whatever they please as long as they can dictate the terms and the parameters of the calculations. Primarily in gun control and climate change are such “results” commonly dishonestly derived.
With the very real threat of court packing hanging over the Supreme Court, D/S/Cs are counting on that threat, as well as the passage of the rest of their anti-liberty agenda, to ensure their establishment as an eternal one-party state. There is reason to believe the Court has received their message loud and clear. Even though AR-type rifles are the most common sporting rifle in America, this is how D/S/Cs plan to get around the ‘common and usual” standard of Heller. The Supreme Court cannot rule unconstitutional a law they never consider, and if they did, D/S/Cs would simply pack the court to overturn a ruling they didn’t like, or ignore its rulings.
One can be certain a packed Court would grant cert on a number of Second Amendment cases sufficient to rule as the dissenters in Heller did: the Second Amendment would continue to exist in fading ink on yellowing paper, but “shall not be infringed” would be interpreted to mean: “shall be infringed in any way government pleases.” It would simply have no meaning or application in the lives of individual Americans. Should this come to pass, we can be certain the rest of the Constitution would be identically interpreted.
I’ve previously noted, particularly in the Second Civil War series, bans of this type would be very likely to provoke Civil War. Most Americans would not comply with such obviously unconstitutional and despotic actions, and should D/S/Cs be sufficiently stupid to try to seize American’s arms, there would be millions of shots heard ‘round the world. They think themselves powerful, morally and intellectually superior, but they stand on the brink of making a historic mistake, as the Japanese did in attacking Pearl Harbor. Thereafter, Admiral Yamamoto said:
I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Contemporary D/S/Cs have the advantage of being able to learn from history. Let us all pray for those directly affected by the actions of an insane criminal in Boulder, and let us further pray D/S/Cs are not as foolish and stupid as they are, every day, revealing themselves to be. Let us pray they can learn from history.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike,
It looks like the Colorado Bureau of Investigation screwed up on this dude. They apparently legally allowed him to buy at least one gun.
I’ve found several articles that state he was convicted of a misdemeanor assault. The only misdemeanor assault that I can find in Colorado is punishable by up to 24 months of incarceration. That’s in CRS 18-3-204.
The CBI approved a background check for him before he went on this spree. According to 18 US Code §922(g)(1) he was a prohibited person.
Here’s a quick reference about misdemeanors in Colorado.
Click to access 14%20MISD%20INTRO.pdf
I bet you won’t see that on any reporting anywhere.
But the state/local government did not report his crime it appears. They have blood on their collective hands, IMO.
“The suspect in the Boulder King Soopers shooting was identified Tuesday as a 21-year-old Arvada man whose only previous charge was for a third-degree assault that a 2018 affidavit says occurred in 2017. The Boulder Police Department (BPD) on Tuesday named the suspect as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, born April 17, 1999.
Assault in the third degree is a class 1 misdemeanor and is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-501 (3). (that means the sentence can be up to two years in the county – not state prison – jail) Colorado Cases Interpreting the Statutory Law.”
Federal law provides for the loss of 2nd Amendment rights for being convicted of a crime that COULD cause one to be sentenced for over a year; as in Mr. Alissa’ case. Another issue to lose 2nd Amendment rights is violent mental problems. This shooter had both and the CO theater shooter and VA Tech had violent mental problems which mental health personnel knew about but didn’t report to the proper authorities. The Boulder shooter should not have been able to legally purchase any firearm had the local government did their damn job under the existing federal law under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Whether one agrees or not with the federal law, it exists.
What good are more laws when the present laws are ignored by state and local governments, and even the military when a dishonorable discharge is issued which also causes a 2nd Amendment right loss which was not reported as the case in one mass shooter, thus allowing in some cases mass killings.
Unfortunately the media has been ignoring this existing federal law lack of enforcement problem for over a decade. I saw it when I testified against the MD 2013 gun control law – it passed.
What is interesting is I have a Ruger mini .223 rifle and friends who are not experts on firearms do not see the difference between it and my .22 firing rifle, the Ruger 10-22. The mini fires the same round as the AR-15 but is not evil looking.
Dear Sentenza:
It appears you’re right. Such things, tragically, are not surprising. That doesn’t mean we should not have such laws, only that those in any way responsible for ensuring they are enforced should be held responsible for such failures.
I may or may not be correct about the federal prohibition, but I found another case where the feds charged a guy as a prohibited person for violating Colorado’s misdemeanor assault statute.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigations runs the background checks in that state, so they quite possibly should have denied his purchase based on that criminal case. I’m sure journalists and Congress will get right on the “police screwed up” angle as opposed to the “guns are bad” angle.
I stumbled on this case entirely by accident and it’s really damning of the CBI.
I can’t find any references to other criminal convictions for Krejcarek and the only offenses that they mention in this appeal are the 18-3-204 convictions.
He might have more convictions, but I can’t find them. I think that the state charges in this case that the feds based their922(g)(1) charges on were the 18-3-204 charges.
If I’m correct, that means that 15 years ago, the CBI should have figured out that 18-3-204 is a criminal prohibition on firearms possession and should not have approved those background checks.
>>>The underlying facts are essentially undisputed. On May 4, 2004, a two-count indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, charging Mr. Krejcarek in Count 1 with possession of a firearm by a restrained and prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and in Count 2 with possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861.
>>>In the instant case, Mr. Krejcarek was twice convicted of third degree assault in violation of 18-3-204, Colorado Revised Statutes, which provides in pertinent part, “a person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if he knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person․” Bodily injury is defined in the Colorado Criminal Code as “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical or mental condition.” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-1-901.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1147479.html
Interesting reference to the potential for civil war. I’m reminded of a novel that I recently read again. THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS by Linda Evans (not that Linda Evans) and John Ringo. The biblical reference is obvious to Christians. However; it is not a petty bureaucrat that has the epiphany. Imagine a 13,000 ton, sentient tank that fires nuclear explosives deciding that it had been persecuting the innocent.
The connection is that the victims had a tradition of a right to bear arms. Unfortunately; they allowed a corrupt Government to infringe on that right then disarm them. They were then herded into slave labor and extermination camps. Only the epiphany of the BOLO saved them.
We need to not repeat that mistake because there is no sentient tank to save us.
Dear Elmer Fudd:
Interesting literary reference. I have all of Ringo’s works, including that one.
Mike,
Hopefully you have read the March Upcountry series that Ringo wrote with David Weber. I’m more a Niven and Pournelle fan, but these are fun.
Bill Ayres estimated he might have to execute 25 million Americans who could not be reeducated.
Dear Alan Reasin:
That was a long time ago. I’m sure contemporary D/S/Cs have dramatically upped their estimates.
This is a “pistol”?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/us/boulder-colorado-weapon-ruger-ar-556/index.html
So.. does this mean future crime stats on weapons used in crimes will count these things as “handguns”? This is getting more and more complicated…. and chock full of BS semantics.
Dear Doug:
Ah! You begin to catch on. Federal firearms regulations are considerably arbitrary. Rifle barrels must be no less than 16″, for example. The weapon you express surprise over is indeed a pistol under federal law. In reality, with a barrel of around “10”, the .223 round it fires is no more effective than many pistol rounds, and many of the thankfully few mass shootings were accomplished with much more common arms. The Virginia Tech attack, which continues to have the highest body count, was done with two common handguns, one of .22LR caliber with 10 round magazines. The all time highest body count school attack was done in the beginning of the 20th century using exclusively explosives.
I’m sure many Normal Americans would support rational revisions to federal law, but only to the extent they support or enhance liberty.
“I’m sure many Normal Americans would support rational revisions to federal law, but only to the extent they support or enhance liberty.”
I don’t agree your “normal” Americans would EVER rationalize anything to do with controlling ANY aspect that affects the Second. As for the rest… you present the interesting dilemma.. what’s more important, life or liberty?
It depends on which opinion letter from the ATF that you read.
If you put that arm brace on your shoulder, the ATF has said that it constitutes a “redesign” and you now have a short barrel rifle.
I don’t blame you for being confused because the ATF invents rules.
So, one guy violates the law — let’s punish the other 330,161,939 citizens who don’t.
Not sure it’s just “some guy”…. here’s a list of the last decade alone of all the “assault rifle” mass shootings…
Boulder: Orlando: Parkland: Las Vegas: Aurora, CO: Sandy Hook: Waffle House: San Bernardino: Midland/Odessa: Poway synagogue: Sutherland Springs: Tree of Life Synagogue:
This IS a problem in our society… unless of course you simply blow off the 40,000 firearm deaths a year in this country as being the cost of having the Second Amendment (every amendment has a cost)… and “leave my gun alone”. That’s an option. We all just suck up the deaths as a nation and continue to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Another option might be… quit worrying about your own gun and start worrying about the victims and targeting on how to reduce the reasons the shooters.. shoot. Quit screaming about those “nasties” who want to rob you of your gun (who in decision-making power wants that anyway??), and come up with ideas to try and solve the problem.
Personally, other than tightening up the background checks to include all states.. controls on weapons themselves is fruitless not because of some personal “admiration” for the Second (I do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation of the Second.. but as an American I abide by their decision), but rather because there’s like 320 million guns floating around the countryside and controlling those numbers is impossible/impractical. That’s the reality. So.. any suggestions to at least TRY and reduce mass shootings?
Dear Doug:
I’ve provided a number of links you may wish to visit. Actual mass shootings remain, thankfully, rare. As to your logic, shall we blow off the privilege of driving, as motor vehicle accidents account for far more deaths than do firearms, and as I noted, driving or vehicle ownership are not fundamental, unalienable rights. That sort of logic also ignores the benefits of armed self-defense, which in practicality and numbers, greatly outweighs the yearly death toll. And of course, should we disarm the law abiding, the death toll would only rise because criminals do not obey the law, and will always obtain whatever weapons they please.
There is no “solution” to criminal violence. It has always been with us and always will. However, enforcing the voluminous laws on the books does indeed decrease crime, but that’s not the direction our self-imagined elite are going, is it.
During my police days, on many occasions, I handed the BATF many prosecutions for straw man purchases on silver platters. In investigating burglaries, I often chanced onto such crimes when burglars fenced goods in pawn shops and used the money to illegally buy guns. I not only collected all the relevant paperwork, but retrieved the guns, obtained confessions, and handed everything to the BATF wrapped in a bow. Not once did they prosecute.
Why? Institutional culture and priorities. In D/S/C administrations, criminals have always been valued constituencies. In Republican administrations, they tends to focus on flashier crimes. Sad, in that such cases were slam dunks. The federal agents would have to do minimum paperwork, and rack up an easy arrest and conviction, but didn’t do it.
Oh, and who wants to deprive Americans of their guns? The POTUS, and most of the D/S/Cs in Congress, as well as powerful and well heeled organizations and wealthy.
I acknowledge your experience in law enforcement…. I certainly was never in the field. But essentially you have indicated that whatever number of Americans die by the gun each year, whether from suicide to accident to gangland violence to mass shootings to whatever, that’s the price to be paid for the Second Amendment.
Your “driving” example is not apples-to-oranges. People choose to drive, and ride, understanding the risks. What you are saying is that when you simply walk out your front door to go to the corner grocery store you are assuming a risk of your own death/injury from any number of situations/events, yet if your death is due someone else’s gun, that risk is mitigated by the liberty granted to any of us in the choice of gun ownership or not. More like a “too bad, so sad” kinda thing.
Look, I own guns and I think a number of the proposed ideas seem ok to me. But here’s the difference between you and me on this subject… you think that people in power want or even have the ability to “take” your guns… therefore “don’t give even an inch”. I rather believe in the Constitution and that the processes contained therein are enough to maintain our freedoms… in spite of political bombast or the idiocy being spewed from the NRA.. or Trump… to sell fear to gun owners. I little bit of moral responsibility from vehement gun owners to actually WANT to try and remedy the problem would help. But.. easier to hand wash and hide behind the Second. By the way.. who is exactly protecting whom here… is your gun protecting you or are you protecting your gun? I am guessing it’s a symbiotic relationship.
Doug;
As I wrote above, it would be helpful if the present laws were enforced so that people prone to violence would have legal access to firearms removed per the 1968 Gun Control Act and as amended. I know the laws are not being enforced since I have been to state legislature hearings and that has been a common complaint. Straw purchases are another mostly ignored issue, at least as reported in 2013 hearings. Whether or not we agree with those federal laws, the latest mass killer would not have had legal access to firearms under them if the FBI and mental health personnel were notified of the man’s conviction and violent nature. At least three other mass murders should not have been permitted to purchase firearms as well.
Good discussion… so, if we want to assume that all would be wonderful if only existing laws would be followed we need to ask a number of questions…
– Why aren’t the laws being followed… (practical issues.. intentional issues… careless issues… technical issues? etc.)
– Who is not following them… (including entities)
If shooters are falling through the cracks of legal/lawful policies then a measure of common sense can presume that it’s impossible that ONLY mass shooters themselves are falling through the cracks but rather the numbers would suggest many, many more so-called “law abiding” gun owners are falling through the same cracks… constantly.
But those are laws that relate to process requirements. Laws broken in the acts of committing capital crimes like murder… apparently are of little or no deterrent, especially to the mentally challenged. who have lost any perspective of right from wrong.
I would tend to agree.. as with the immigration problem… if we just enforce existing laws that might take care of some of the issues. Now… is this also an issue of state and federal AG’s failing to charge and prosecute shooters properly… or.. is there also the other problem in that the vast majority of shooters die at the scene and never make it to trial… in order for the legal system to sort it all out judicially? My questions are of course rhetorical.
Dear Alan Reasin:
Among my past experiences was teaching history in a junior college. In speaking of the writing of legislation, I suggested two criteria for analyzing any prospective law: (1) Will it do what it’s backers claim it will? (2) Is it necessary? Are there other laws in place that accomplish the same thing? Constitutional fidelity was, of course, an understood concern.
So-called gun control laws fail on both criteria. They will not in any way reduce crime rates or prevent violence, and there are also more than sufficient laws in place–more than 20,000 local, state and federal laws–that would, if actually enforced, suppress criminals.
This, however, is not the point of such things. D/S/Cs fear law-abiding Americans because they seek to subjugate them, and that’s not easily done to armed people used to liberty.
To all,
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, as there are several reasoned arguments. Doug, yes, there are many auto-related deaths, and not the best comparison. Now do abortions.
As to the argument that people in power don’t really want to take our guns, I actually take them at their word, and I predict increased efforts to do so in the near future. We all need to keep in mind the fact that violent crime has decreased, while gun ownership has increased. The fact that edged weapons deaths are greater every year than rifle deaths is a fact that none may dare speak. As the FBI’s annual UCR shows, handgun homicides represent the vast, vase majority of firearm deaths. Making an inanimate object the Boogyman is no solution, however.
One point touched on, but I feel needs emphasis is that the failure of current laws does not mean new laws are needed. Adding new legislation is nothing but political theater. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Same goes for our legislators. The Clinton gun ban was such theater.
Alas, our current atmosphere of Identity Politics means that there will be no serious effort or discussion about the individuals committing these awful crimes. But sure, let’s infringe on the law-abiding citizens 2A rights because that will fix things, right?
My point is; “gun control” does not work. Do we not have decades of proof of this? (see Baltimore, New Orleans, and Chicago) I am told enough to remember the headlines “screaming” about how there will be “blood in the streets” and “wild west shootouts” many years ago when Florida enacted their legislation enabling open carry. Spoiler: It didn’t happen.
I appreciate Doug’s view that there is a problem in our society. I suggest we reform our public education system from top to bottom to begin with. Your mileage may vary, as there are so many aspects within our society that are failing. I happen to disagree with the argument that 40k deaths a year “is the cost of the 2A.” Firearm murders, including mass-shootings, occur in other countries that do not have such a right, and comparisons are available.
The problem with comparing gun deaths in other countries that basically do not engrave their “gun rights’ into granite like we do here is that they all represent their own social and cultural influences, their own stress level interpretations, many times their own religious beliefs are more culturally ingrained, and they have entirely different historical experiences than we have had.. and all that can interpret vastly, and it’s really not a strict apples-to-apples comparison as to the why and how and under what circumstances those deaths occurred. Does the breakdown of weapons used match our stats? The fact still remains, our Constitution and the current SCOTUS interpretation of the Second allows gun ownership in this country and since guns are available people will die each year from guns. But as I indicated earlier… there’s no way, given all the numbers of firearms in private hands in this country, is it even thinkable that guns will ever vanish from the American scene. There is no possible way to un-gun America. So we accept that.. and we accept that the the Second costs the nation in lives every year. I see no problem at all accepting some moral obligation with that (and as I have mentioned earlier, any number of our other Rights also cost lives each year as well). My “thing” then becomes… quit harping on the fear of guns being taken away as that quite literally requires an act of Congress and very likely individual state legislatures…. quit listening to the crazy Conservative fear mongers and the few Liberals who have a mouthpiece but no power by which they can blather about how wonderful the world would be without guns. We need to focus on the why’s and wherefores that make people pull triggers against other humans in the first place. Obviously that requires a huge investment in mental health…. and somewhere along the line someone.. or some entity… is going to have to be empowered to make a decision that a “certain” American cannot own a gun. Not unusual given we already restrict certain Americans from the right to vote in some states for committing crimes. But we should very well guard and monitor the idea that there will be some among us who should not be entitled to all our rights.. God-given or otherwise.
Sorry… you suggested “now do abortions”… which I am guessing was more a rhetorical suggestion. But let’s compare this a bit since gun rights and the abortion question are so dependent on SCOTUS… common to both issues, insomuch as the issues themselves are far different. I think I would not be far off in saying that SCOTUS decisions on gun rights is largely an interpretation of the meaning of the Second. Abortion is an interpretation of law and the determination as to when human rights of the unborn are in effect…. and whether federal monies to allow for abortions isn’t an extension of state sponsored murder. Lots and lots of emotions and moral interpretations as well as religious variances. No question.. and also I have no answers. I am pro-choice… but not pro-abortion. Generally that doesn’t sit well with fervent anti-abortion folks… if one is pro-choice then they obviously permit abortions. I tend to think if one proclaims to be anti-abortion then I suggest they must follow through completely.. no exceptions on the delivery table. If mom must die to save the unborn then so be it in the hands of God to save mom. I do not see someone being a “partial” anti-abortion person. If a woman has been raped and wants an abortion.. again… saving the baby matters…. IF one is a true anti-abortionist.
But look.. abortion is a personal thing… and while we can discuss varying viewpoints it’s still a personal moral issue. I could remove myself from the abortion discussion for the obvious thing.. I am not a woman so what do I know. Having said that, I don’t even know anyone, even a family member who has had one (although there have been a fair number of miscarries which then has illustrated its own set of emotional traumas). So I comment here not in the least thinking of any long-winded discussion.
Dear Voice In The Wilderness:
In comparing vehicle deaths with firearm deaths, I’m addressing two of the most common anti-liberty/gun arguments: “people are dying! We have to so something now!” which is inevitably followed by: “If it saves even one life, we have to do it!”
If those assertions are logically valid, obviously we must do away with anything that kills, starting with whatever kills most. By that same logic, AR-15 like rifles are far down on the priority list, and we’ll have to figure out some other way to cut things, including our meals, long before we get to rifles. Lasers, perhaps? I’m certainly going to miss my power tools.
Of course, that’s not logic at all, but logical fallacy. Life is a matter of trade offs, balancing benefits with detriments. By any logical, rational measure, the keeping and bearing of firearms by the law-abiding is very much to the benefit of mankind. We can see the very clear evidence of this in the unprecedented surge of Americans buying arms and ammunition prior to and since the installation of Joe Biden–actually his handlers. Americans of all races and both genders realize the Harris Administration intends to disarm us all. They know because D/S/Cs are telling them that, and are no longer bothering to hide their true intentions. Combine that with their efforts to abolish or hamstring the police and law-abiding Americans have come to the ultimate truism: when it comes to the preservation of our lives and the lives of those they love, we’re on our own; we always have been. Take away or limit the rule of law, and that reality is ever more stark.
As I’ve often written, this is the ultimate women’s issue. Nothing but firearms can give a slight woman the ability to deter or stop a large, strong man. If we truly care about saving lives, begin there.
We also have to remember the law is in place to protect criminals from the law-abiding. If the law is disabled or abolished, the law-abiding have no choice but to stop criminals themselves, and having no prisons…well, their solutions will tend to be rather swift and final. Firearms always have been the last resort when law and order break down. Sadly, our self-imagined elite are actively trying to break it down, while surrounding themselves with soldiers and other armed men.
So I’ll bite: keeping and bearing arms unquestionably saves far more than one innocent life every year, far more lives than are lost, while helping to deter and remove from existence two legged predators that would take innocent life. Let’s pass a law that mandates the keeping and bearing of arms by all able Americans of suitable age. There’s a compromise we can all get behind–if logic matters, that is.
And where is the credible link that has the stats of all these lives gun owners across the land have saved? I had no idea anyone was required to report “I saved myself with my own gun.” events… unless all such events usually are followed up with a call to the police and they file a report. I’d be curious how that even breaks down… discharging their weapon or just brandishing it threateningly with the obligatory harsh language and the home invader runs off… having expected an empty house and never intending to harm anyone inside anyway.
Dear Doug:
I can find that easily, and so can you. What comes to mind in the few spare seconds I have is the Clinton Administration did just such a study, expecting to find support for gun control, but came up with a figure of 1.5 million. They immediately tried to hide it, but it was eventually exposed.
Dear Doug:
I had a few minutes,so here are just a few links–credible links–to defensive gun uses:
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
https://www.tierthreetactical.com/21-defensive-gun-use-statistics-with-judge-provided-legal-analysis/
https://redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/01/02/statistics-on-self-defensive-gun-use-will-surprise-you-and-stun-liberals-n124268
https://capitalresearch.org/article/why-is-the-cdc-hiding-its-defensive-gun-use-statistics/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=3ede0970299a
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/2018/06/27/fbi-report-civilian-firearms-saving-lives/
http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
Thanks for the links. We might have two different views on “credibility” but beyond that, it does seem relatively universal as to the rather significant difficulty in collecting not only data from a credible source but also data itself collected to measure a broader scope than just proving or disproving some bias. As I mentioned earlier.. the typical “home invader” that gun owners so typically assign as being the ultimate event to defend oneself with a firearm.. has it’s own variants, largely with the overall intent of the invader. I’m not overly sold on the fact that huge numbers of “home invasions” were where the invader intended to due harm to any occupant. If the invader was scared off because an occupant brandished a weapon.. might suggest the intent was a burglary thinking no one was home. In those cases where the invader scurries off.. are they all reported to the police, and do the police bother to make a report to be sent up the chain? I dunno. My point is… a firearm may have been present with the potential victim, but how exactly was the effect attributed to gun ownership. Again.. I dunno. What I do know is that with limited accurate data and precise interpretation of said data… both sides of the gun control issue are simply marching aimlessly to their respective bias.
If there’s some mysterious CDC report.. something more current than 25 years ago… seems to me easy enough that Congress, current or previous, can/could easily subpoena the results to satiate the public’s desire to know. Or.. Congress could commission their own research.
While reading your links there what hit me most was that I didn’t readily see any suggestive comparison that the criminal deterrent allegedly assigned to gun ownership as dropping to the extent of something like firearm purchases. One may presume to think that will all these guns preventing crime and saving lives the overall reduction in crime stats in general would be reduced… in other words, as more guns are purchased does crime go down anywhere? I tend to think police departments are the ones not really wanting to see published data on the “successes” in gun ownership deterring crime and saving lives given they don’t want to encourage untrained civilian gun use.
I meant to add on my last reply, Mike…. in all your years as a cop how many calls to the scene of a gun owner having used his firearm to kill or disable some intruder or assailant.. and how many of those ended up be legitimate-case-closed or went on to become DA legal issues (and I don’t mean civil suits)?
Dear Doug:
If you’ll take those links, you’ll find most have links and/or footnotes to the most “credible” studies in this area. Perhaps the most credible–not in any way accounting for methodology, etc.–“study” was that done by the Clintonistas. They really wanted to find there were virtually no instances of self-defense by the law abiding. That’s what they fully expected to find, so sure were they of their gun control beliefs, but they honestly reported their findings. Their superiors, including Bill Clinton, dishonestly tried to hide them. Using that metric alone, their finding of about 1.5 million per year might reasonably be credited.
By the way, thanks for your appropriate tone in this thread.
As to my police experience in this area, it unquestionably supports the findings of from 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. How many did I experience? Easily 100, but I didn’t keep track. With only a few exceptions, those incidents involved a citizen using a gun, without firing a shot, to end a confrontation. Usually, the burglar, recognizing a gun, set a sprint record fleeing the victim’s yard, home, etc. The same was true for on-the-street encounters. Virtually all were no-billed: no charges.
As to crime reduction, As John Lott has written in “More Guns, Less Crime,” which I believe is into its third edition and many printings, more guns do equal less crime, and I recommend that book to you. We also should recognize the fact that while gun ownership has skyrocketed, accidents have dramatically declined, and shootings of all kinds have not increased as one would expect if the mere number of guns in private hands drives criminal misuse of guns.
Hi all,
I haven’t had time to unpack all that has been said recently, and hope to get to that soon. In the meantime, please read this
article.https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/24/mass-shooters-by-race-and-hispanic-ethnicity-not-far-off-from-the-population-as-a-whole/
Eugene Volokh is one of my daily reads. Some of you may find the comments especially interesting. I would like to find out more about the statistics regarding the mass murders that are stopped by a gun-wielding private citizen, as opposed to those stopped by law enforcement.
regards
For what it is worth, the CDC, responding to an executive order by Pres. Obama, conducted a study of gun violence. Please keep in mind that it was under Obama that the CDC (as with the IRS and FBI) became politicized. Yet, here is a summary of that study:
“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,”
Needless to say, this was not the outcome many on the Left wanted. Also, I have been a member of the NRA for many years (flaws and all) and one thing they do well is report defensive use of guns. Same for the USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Assoc) Perhaps I am now so conditioned by the monthly data on defensive gun use that it is simply not a major headline in my world.
Surprisingly, here is a review of that study published by Daily Kos, (of all outlets)
REVIEW OF CDC REPORT
The CDC report on gun violence was over 120 pages in length, but sadly had very little to say about defensive gun use. I will summarize their findings in list fashion
* According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, between 2007 and 2011, over 600,000 people reported facing an assailant armed with a gun.
* According to the FBI, 3% of firearm assaults known to police result in a death.
* According to a Pew Survey, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection – rather than hunting and other activities – as the main reason for why they own guns” (Pew Research Center, 2013)
* Four studies have been done showing that crime victims who actively used a gun to defend themselves had lower rates of injury than crime victims who did not use guns to defend themselves – Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Tark and Kleck 2004; and Southwick 2000.
* Defensive gun use is a fact but it is difficult to count accurately.
* The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has estimated that there are between 60,000 and 105,000 DGUs per year. Between the years 1992 and 1994, the NCVS reported there were in total 116,000 DGUs.
* Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated the annual occurrence of DGUs to be around 2.5 million per year.
* The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year.
* According to the CDC report: “The 2005 National Research Council study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that passage of right to carry laws decrease or increase violent crime. ”
The take-home message by the CDC report on gun violence is that DGU does occur, and there are very large discrepancies in the available estimates. And sadly, the CDC report contains no suggestions for future research to better or more accurately assess DGU.
I think we can agree that defensive gun use is a difficult statistic to collect, but it does exist in large numbers (Kleck & Gertz)
Finally, The Spousal Unit thinks my S&W M&P 15 (an AR-15 variant) is the cat’s meow. Besides her basic .22 rifle, this is the first rifle she feels comfortable and confident with for defensive use. (Better than the 12 gauge) One thing about the AR platform is that the ergonomic benefits are undeniable.
Thank you for listening. By the way, I wish I knew how to adjust font and bolding for reference and emphasis
PS – So called “Red Flag Laws” are extremely problematic. The absence of Due Process in these laws should alarm everyone. Our nations approach to mental illness has changed over the last 4 or 5 decades, and I am of the opinion that the changes have not been for the better. While mass shootings by individuals suffering some type of mental illness are the lightning rod, take a look at the widespread homelessness in San Francisco that is attributed to mental illness. (leaving drug use aside for now) Clearly, we as a nation are NOT addressing mental illness even at its most visible, day-by-day level.
Mike,
Mandatory gun ownership!?!?!?!? Have you lost your mind?!?!?!
Wait…. what is that EU country that actually does that?
and another thing…
I have carried a handgun for the past 18 years. I am not affiliated with law enforcement in any way. I made an informed decision to do this, and I sought the best training I could afford. I have had a NC concealed carry permit for most of that time, and at the time of my initial application, the bar was set pretty high compared to current requirements. Which is to say that I consider the training I received to be above average. I sincerely hope that I never, ever have to use my gun to defend myself or others. However, if I am ever faced with a person intent on murder and mayhem, I hope that I am carrying.
Dear Voice In The Wilderness:
Thanks for the cites. I have family visiting this weekend, so my research time is a bit limited. This coming Tuesday, I’ll be posting a revised and updated AR-15 primer. I suspect you and the spousal unit will find it interesting.
Pingback: Rifle/Pistol Hybrids: The Rest Of The Story | Stately McDaniel Manor