Category: Uncategorized

What are the Gun Laws in Detroit, Again?

Via Clayton Cramer comes this Detroit Free Press story of a drive-by by the good guys:

Police seek shooter who saved teen girl

They say passing car stopped and passenger opened fire, killing pipe-wielding assailant

A man was beating a 16-year-old girl with a pipe Wednesday morning on Detroit’s west side.

Something people need to remember, firearms are used in violent crimes only about 18% of the time. If neither party has a firearm, the bigger one with the most effective weapon generally wins. And a 22 year-old man with a pipe wins out over a 16-year-old girl – until…

Suddenly, the man was dead, shot several times by a passenger in a passing car.

A good guy with a gun shows up, be it citizen or police officer.

Police are looking for the driver of the car and the gunman, who might not be a criminal suspect, but a much rarer species — a drive-by vigilante.

“Under certain circumstances, a citizen taking violent action to protect themselves or others is warranted,” said Detroit Police Cmdr. Craig Schwartz of the major crimes division. “We need to know if these actions are justified.’

With the assumption being “guilty until proven innocent.”

The dead man was identified as Johnny Donaldson Jr., 22, of Detroit. Police said he was swinging a metal pipe at several women and girls at Northlawn and Plymouth at 7:45 a.m.

That’s when the motorist, with the passenger next to him, rolled by in a silver Pontiac. The driver stopped, and the passenger opened fire from inside the car. Then, police said, the car might have driven over the man.

Just to be sure?

Police were investigating Donaldson on Wednesday evening and had no motive for the pipe attack. It was not known if he knew his victims.

Several children and adults suffered minor injuries from the pipe, police said. At least two of the girls were on their way to Mackenzie High School.

So this will end up as another incidence of “school-related” violence, I’m sure.

Police said they do not have a description of the two men.

For that I’m glad.

“We need them to come in to talk to us and tell us exactly what happened,” Schwartz said.

“The information is that a girl was being violently assaulted at the time of the shooting. We really need to talk to these guys to get their side of it.”

Let me translate: We really need to identify the people who took the law into their own hands. We know that the shooter and the driver probably have long records, because honest law-abiding citizens don’t drive around with loaded firearms and drive over the body of the SOB they just shot. So we want to get their side of the story, then charge them with illegal possession of a firearm, discharging a firearm within city limits, and any other charge we can come up with.

The peons should not be defending themselves. This must be Nipped. In. The. Bud!

That’s Not Logic, My Friend

Fedup Citizen has a post up about why he can’t understand how good people don’t believe in Jebus. (His links appear bloggered, so scroll down to “How can such logical people be so illogical”.) I’d have responded to him in an e-mail, but he doesn’t have an address up. Perhaps someone will point him to this.

Let me see if I can explain it to him:

I start from the question of, “Where did all of this (universe, earth, life) come from?” If you answer chance, sorry. Chance is not a creative force. Chance merely describes a condition of mathematical odds. There only three possible explanations for the existence of everything you see around you. Either it always was, or it created itself, or some intelligent entity created it.

Um, you missed one – it just is. More on this later.

Point number one gets thrown out by the laws of physics. Second Law of Thermodynamics. Look it up. Created itself? Think about it. Imagine the computer in front of you not existing, but then deciding it needed to exist and willed itself into existence.

You failed physics, didn’t you? The Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially states that for a closed system (that’s critical) the amount of entropy contained within must increase. That’s essentially it. What it does not say is that order cannot occur within a closed system either spontaneously or with intent. All that takes is the application of energy – and in that application of energy, the net entropy of the system must increase, even if the entropy of a locality is decreased. If the Second Law was as you apparently interpret it, planets could not form, the sea could not be separated from the land, hell, you couldn’t build elements heavier than hydrogen. That’s not the case.

People misapply the Second Law of Thermodynamics quite a lot. This is just another example.

Let’s dispense with the ignorant question, “Well, who created God?”

Let’s not.

Sorry, but using linear logic, that question is pointless.

It is? I’ll give you that point if you agree that asking “Where’d the Universe come from?” is exactly the same question.

The assumption is that God always was, (and here I’m going to really offend some people) just as the Bible asserts. It is perfectly logical to assume that if only one answer fits the given conditions, it must be correct. If points one and two are obviously wrong, point three has got to be it.

Here’s where your ‘logic’ fails. You believe God exists and is responsible for the creation of the Universe. You admit that you cannot know where God came from, and that therefore he has always existed. I don’t believe that God exists, and I admit that I cannot know where the universe came from. But it’s here – I can detect it, measure it, perform experiments on it. The fact that it exists is not a matter of faith. Whether or not it was a billion-to-one chance, it doesn’t matter because we hit the jackpot! Else we wouldn’t be here discussing it. Or, as some believe, the Universe has always existed and is cyclical – ever expanding then contracting then starting over again. Or, it may be steady-state and will some time in the incomprehensible future become a vast volume all at one uniform temperature. We don’t know, but we keep trying to understand.

Look at biology. Living systems are incredibly more complex than that of our most sophisticated technology at NASA or the DoD. But even a mousetrap or a handgun illustrate irreducible complexity. For those unfamiliar with the concept, tell me which item you can remove from a common mousetrap and it will still function as intended. Even Darwin admitted that the eye gave him fits because you just couldn’t explain it apart from an intelligent designer. This was more than a century before Watson and Crick discovered DNA. The chance of a single nucleotide forming by accident is one in 10 to the 23rd power, yet it takes millions of such nucleotides to make up all the genes necessary to create a human being.

To look at that incredible amount of design and figure there is no God is tantamount to looking at the space shuttle launching and saying, “gee, wonder how that happened.”

There’s that Second Law problem again. There is no reason that life, in all its complexity could not be chance. If it were impossible, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. The fact that we are here, as we are, is not proof of a designer. Because if there is a designer, you just pushed the question of “faith” back one level. That is all. Because, as flippantly as you tried, you cannot dismiss the question of “Where did God come from?” It’s exactly the same question as “Where did the Universe come from?” And the answer is the same: You cannot know. The difference between those of us who do not believe in a God and those who do, is that we who do not believe don’t require that there be an all-powerful being in charge of it all. The only difference between my faith and yours is that I believe I can’t know where the universe came from. You believe in a God you cannot measure, test, or even detect. As someone once said:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I’m not an atheist – I accept that, just as I cannot know where the universe came from, I cannot know that there is no God, but I find the idea quite illogical. Occam’s razor says, in my logic, that the existence of a God is a more complicated explanation for the existence of the Universe than “it just is.”

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.