Author: Kevin

I Feel Safer Already (not)

Ravenwood links to this story of the BATFE running a months-long “investigation” of retired gun collectors being busted for “engaging in the gun business” without a Federal Firearms License – something the BATF purposely doesn’t define. As the article states:

The BATF and its predecessors have always opposed any objective standard of what constitutes an “illicit gun sale” – as opposed to unlicensed buying and selling for the purpose of enhancing a personal collection, which is specifically authorized in the law.

At the 1968 NRA convention in Boston, officials from BATF’s predecessor, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit of the Internal Revenue Service, discussed what constituted “engaging in the firearms business” at a crowded NRA Gun Collectors Committee Meeting.

The Midwest Region ATTU director considered the dividing line six gun sales in a year. The head of Boston ATTU contended two sales made a person a dealer. (That guy later charged a Fall River, Mass. memorial group with failure to register the 16-inch guns on the Battleship Massachusetts.)

Significantly, the ATTU official from Washington declined to give an objective definition, saying “dealing” should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Pardon the hell out of me, but a retired guy selling a few guns each year out of his collection is a far cry from a guy selling guns out of his trunk in downtown Chicago. You can bet your ass the guns these guys were selling weren’t cheap handguns.

This is what pisses me off about the BATF – they spend months and tens of thousands of dollars to build a case, get a warrant, arrest and prosecute the wrong people – because it’s easier to find, charge and prosecute people like this than it is to find the guys who provide guns to VIOLENT CRIMINALS. And with the BATF, it’s all about getting convictions.

Dept. of Our Collapsing Schools

Good news, this time. From a link at Opinionari comes this Newsday story about the increasing incidence of black families homeschooling. Money quotes:

Nationwide, increasing numbers of African-Americans, dissatisfied with public and private school systems, have turned to homeschooling. For some it was a last resort, found after years of shifting schools before deciding that their children would get a better education at home than in classrooms where minority children often get caught in a cycle of low achievement.

—

African-Americans have grown from 3 percent of homeschoolers in 1994 to 10 percent in 1999, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

And blacks make up about 13% of the population, so this is a very good thing, IMHO. Hell, more would be far better, considering the school systems.

Parents of different races said they homeschool primarily to avoid the crime, drugs and lack of discipline in schools, Slatter said, but several African-Americans said their choice is an effort to combat low expectations traditional schools set for black children.

(Emphasis mine) Kids will live up to what you expect of them – regardless of color. That single paragraph is a damning indictment of the public school system.

“A lot of families are saying there is a stigma of minority underachievement … and we can’t allow this to happen anymore,” said Jennifer James, founder of the National African-American Homeschoolers Alliance. The organization, launched on-line in January, 2003, has 230 members, said James, who homeschools her 5- and 2-year-old in Chapel Hill, N.C. “In some circles of the African-American community, homeschooling has become sort of a push … because there really are no options,” James said.

And more and more families are waking up to the fact. But there are many that just cannot take the financial hit required to homeschool. The loss of a second income is very difficult for many families.

No formal research on achievements of homeschooled African-Americans exists, said Ray, but data from ACT, the company that administers a college exam, homeschooled students of all races consistently score one to two percentage points above the national average.

So much for the idea that homeschooling is a poor choice educationally. If you can homeschool, you should. The public school system is broken beyond repair, and sending your children through it does them a severe disservice.

When it Comes to Restricting My Rights, the Burden of Proof is on YOU

Tim Lambert (the guy hard after John Lott) poo-poo’s Glenn Reynold’s take on increasing gun crime in England:

The story also states that gun crime has increased to 0.15 gun homicides in England and Wales per 100,000 population in the previous year, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 in the US. Reynolds take: gun control is “Not a smashing success, so far”. Gun control may not be responsible for the difference, but it seems a bit much for pro-gunners to point to a gun homicide rate one twenty-fourth of that of the United States as evidence for a failure of gun control.

I took issue with Tim’s position in his comments:

You miss the point. “Gun control” is supposed to control GUN violence. By extension, I suppose, all violence, but gun violence for certain. The mantra chanted at the (somewhat less than) Million Moms March was “England can do it, Australia can do it, we can too!” Well, England has systematically (through the death-by-a-thousand-cuts method) ensured that the law-abiding population is, for all intents and purposes disarmed. There are a few who still have rifles and shotguns (that they may not have for defensive purposes, must keep locked up separate from the also locked ammunition, etc., etc.) and it hasn’t made them SAFER from gun crime. What so many gun control advocates so adroitly ignore is that England’s firearm homicide rate has always been 1/20th of ours – REGARDLESS of the firearms laws in either country at the time. It was true in 1919 and it’s still true today. You point to England’s rate as if gun control were somehow responsible for it, and it’s not. Correlation does not equal causation, but the facts remain that America has passed no significantly restrictive gun control laws and our homicide rates (historically very high) have dropped to the levels they were last in the 60’s. England has passed ever-stricter gun control laws up to and including a ban on handguns (with all legally owned and registered ones handed in) and their gun crime is continually increasing.

So the typical reaction is: “It would have been worse if we hadn’t passed these crucial laws!”

Horseshit.

To which Tim responded:

Kevin, I didn’t say that English gun control was definitely responsible for keeping their gun crime rate far lower than the US one. It’s possible that it would have stayed low anyway. But I don’t see how you can rule out the possibility that the laws might have helped keep the rate low.

A few years ago, the gun crime rate in England was decreasing. Do you think that any of the pro-gunners reported that?

No changing the subject, Tim! My response was such that I felt it appropriate to copy the thread here:

Tim, “A few years ago, the gun crime rate in England was decreasing”? How many years ago, and how much? It’s never been high – never – but that hasn’t stopped ever more draconian “gun control” legislation from passing there. Now the law:

A) Bans all fully-automatic weapons

B) Bans all semi-auto and pump-action rifles

C) Severely restricts semi-auto and pump-action shotguns

D) Bans all modern handguns

E) Requires “safe storage” of the few weapons still legal

F) Prohibits carrying a firearm (or any other weapon) for self-defense

G) Requires all legally owned weapons to be registered and all legal owners to be licensed

H) Severely restricts (legal) firearms distribution

and so on and so forth.

All these things (we are told) will make us safer. Here’s what we know:

1) The number of legal owners is at an all-time low.

2) England has never had a high homicide rate, but that rate is increasing, and the percentage committed with firearms (handguns in particular) has gone up since the ban.

3) Crime committed with handguns has significantly increased there.

4) Incidents of crime committed with fully automatic weapons are increasing there.

5) Incidents of crime involving hand grenades (easily smuggled along with firearms) have occurred.

And remember – England is an ISLAND. A fact hasn’t affected “gun availability” to the criminally inclined.

AT BEST the gun control laws in England have affected “spree shootings” by licensed gun owners. (Hey, if it saves just one life!) But those incidents are extremely rare, and the net number of homicides doesn’t seem to have been affected for the better.

“I don’t see how you can rule out the possibility that the laws might have helped keep the rate low.” I’m NOT ruling it out – I’m asking you to prove it. According to the recent CDC report, all the gun control laws passed here have proven inconclusive in their effectiveness. I’d say the same can be said of England’s.

I believe there is an individual right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons for defense of themselves and the state. I believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees us that right will not be infringed by the government. I believe that the laws of England are offensive to that right, but it’s their country. I believe that gun control activists here want to pass laws identical to those of England. I believe that’s unconstitutional, and if allowed will do irrepairable damage to our individual rights. I also believe that, once the law-abiding are disarmed, our criminal class (which has never been shy about shooting people) will have a free playing field and our rates of firearm-involved crime will skyrocket.

(Some typos corrected for readability)

The burden of proof isn’t on the gun rights side.

I TOLD You I Was Cutting Back

Got up at 4:00AM, hit the road at 5:00, two hundred mile drive, six hours at the customer’s site, two hundred miles back, got home at 6:45PM.

Oh well, no entry in the Carnival of the Vanities this week.

I’m still fermenting that essay, though. Maybe this weekend….

Chris Muir’s Best One YET!

Day by Day – (GOTTA be coming to a paper near you soon!)

Now THIS is a Fisking!

Rise of the Common Man does an EXCELLENT fisking of an LA Times op-ed. (Nod to Alphecca for the pointer!)

More Political Cartoons

It beats writing another essay (which I’m fermenting in my mind even now…)

Robert Arial (The State, SC) comments on Congress’ reaction to the $87B reconstruction package for Iraq:

John Cole of the Durham (NC) Herald-Sun puts a bit more pop-culture spin on it.

But you’ll note that Congress isn’t quite as hated as Mr. Bartman.

Mike Ramirez (who remains about the only good thing about the LA Times) makes an accurate and pithy comment on the ACLU’s choice of what they defend and what they attack:

And another on China’s space program (which I comment on below:)

Jim Day of the Las Vegas Review Journal is a bit more pointed in his comment on that topic:

Randy Bish of the Pittsburg Review-Tribune puts a more comical spin on it:

Chip Bok of the Akron Beacon Journal comments on Rush Limbaugh’s addiction. (See? I told you it would be interesting!)

Dick Wright of the Columbus (OH) Dispatch comment (at some risk to his job?) on media bias:

And finally, Clay Bennet of the Christian Science Monitor does too:

Call it Synergy

Several people commented over the weekend on this Washington Times piece, Democrats rethink gun-control stance, not the least of whom was C. Dodd Harris of Ipse Dixit (which got him another Instalanche). Quoted in the comments to Dodd’s piece was this paraphrashing of a post on Blaster’s Blog:

Some things are beliefs. Those things aren’t messages. And if you don’t believe those things, your message can’t be credible, no matter how good you are at faking sincerity.

And Commoner gets right down to the bullet points:

Mainstream Americans are sick of being told by politicians of all stripes that they’re simply not good enough.

While the Republicans are hardly innocent, consider the long list of Democratic positions that are elitist in nature:

School vouchers. What’s more fundamental than deciding how your child should be educated?

Citizens shouldn’t be allowed to put some of their social security money in the private sector; they’re not smart enough to make that decision.

Blacks and Hispanics, no matter how well off, simply can’t keep up with white students; they need help. Note that the logical alternative– basing affirmative action on poverty– is scoffed at.

California recall. Two major objections to the most direct form of democracy were that it gave the people too much power, and that they were voting for Arnold simply because he was a movie star. Both send an unmistakable message: You’re not smart enough to vote. While on the subject of that recall, remember the one debate that Arnold participated in? How many times did Cruz use a variation of, “You don’t understand the issue.”. If he feels that way about other candidates, how does he feel about you?

The oft-heard talking point that those who support the president in Iraq do so out of ignorance or misplaced patriotism.

Contempt for commercial media. How many times have you heard a Democrat complain about Fox News? It doesn’t matter that millions of people watch it every day; they’re obviously all deceived dupes.

Indeed, it often seems that the only decision the people can be trusted with is to abort fetuses.

But of course – we’re all morons, so the abortion of morons is a net good thing. Nothing should stand in the way of that. The fewer voters there are, the better democracy works.

This all relates back to the reaction to the California recall election so many of us discussed. As the OpinionJournal put it,

If it comes as a revelation to the Democratic Undergrounders that 20% is less than a majority, they’re not exactly rocket scientists, are they?

Well, granted the DU denizens aren’t in Von Braun’s class, but that doesn’t stop many of them from being elitists. Other comments from that thread:

I would prefer 20%-25% voter turnout!!!! There are very few people on either side of the aisle who understand the issues! The masses can be so easily mislead that they really should not vote!

I know – maybe they should start giving tests to voters

(T)he public means well, but they are uninformed, reactive, fearful and the part of the brain they are voting with now is reptilian. I could go into the zillions of factors behind this but bottom line is the educational level of 75% of the voter base is approximately 7th grade, beyond this point they have closed off.

It’s no good being smarter, better educated, better informed, and a kinder, gentler border collie if you don’t know how to herd the sheeple. Obviously, our leaders have lost the herding instinct. We need new blood.

Current shepherd Evan Bayh complains “We (Democrats) cannot be perceived as cultural elitists,” but he isn’t really interested in not being cultural elitists – just not being perceived that way. Or, as Blaster put it, he’s interested in faking sincerity better, as evidenced by “Democratic Pollster” Mark Penn, who was quoted in the Washington Times piece as saying:

“The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes” in current gun laws, Mr. Penn said, adding that polls show the term “gun safety” is received better than the more commonly used term “gun control.”

As I wrote earlier when commenting on another Washington Times piece,

“Gun SAFETY” = “Gun ELIMINATION.” Just Like “Gun CONTROL” Used to.

Cultural elitists who know what’s best for the proles. And in the ultimate irony, they call themselves democrats.

Update: John Moore of Useful Fools links to this SFGate story about the recall and comments on the arrogance of the Anointed.

China in Space

James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket posts that he’s not all that worked up about China’s recent orbiting a manned spacecraft. He writes:

So why hasn’t an old space and technology enthusiast like me talking about it much?

Pretty much because I’m in waiting mode. What am I waiting for? I’m waiting for the Chinese to do something original, something that we didn’t do more than 30 years ago.

I left him this comment:

Just my 2¢:

China has (at the moment) the only kind of government that can pursue an ambitious space program – a dictatorship. More precisely, a well funded dictatorship.

If you accept (as I do) that the future of mankind rests in getting our genome off this planet, then exploring and colonizing space is a high priority in and of itself. But it’s expensive, and the free nations of the world have pretty much demonstrated that they’re not willing to pony up the dough required to build an infrastructure capable of getting us off Earth in any permanent manner. (Or apparently in much of the way of a temporary manner, come to think of it.)

For the military, the high ground is best, and space is that high ground. Untold mineral wealth exists in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. There’s literally unlimited acreage and power just within our solar system.

But the entry cost is high.

China can be the nation that gets there firstest with the mostest.

They may actually have that vision. They may have the necessary will. We’re providing the money (Thanks, Walmart!) and we’ve already provided most of the technology. They’ve got the necessary scientific minds (take a look at the postgraduate Physics departments of most major universities here.)

Pardon me if the idea that space will be the domain of Red China a bit disturbing.

We should have had a lunar colony twenty years ago, and we should be exploring the asteroid belt now.

But of COURSE!

In the long tradition of butchering good books, and the only slightly more recent tradition of making movies “politically correct,” and the split-second more recent tradition of pushing a political agenda, Hollywood brings us “Runaway Jury“ – the big-screen version of John Grisham’s bestselling courtroom thriller.

Of course, Grisham’s book was about a lawsuit against a tobacco company, and that was before the big settlements rolled in, so in the footsteps of Paramount’s production of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears where they replaced Arab Muslim terrorists with neo-nazis, Fox replaces the tobacco company with an assault weapon manufacturer, which (being, of course a billion-dollar business) can afford to hire high-tech thugs to fix the jury (because Jebus knows that’s the only way these evil purveyors of death could escape JUSTICE!)

This, of course, has nothing to do with the upcoming sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban.

I’ve got this bridge for sale. In Brooklyn? Drop me a line if you’re interested.