Tag: fisk

Five Reasons Why it ISN’T

KevinLeave a comment

The Consumer Federation of America (which, as far as I can tell is a bunch of trial lawyers interested in suing anyone that can make them rich) has this nifty little two-page handout on why you should support the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. Let me fisk:

The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would give the Department of Justice consumer protection authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition.

Right. Regulate them right out of existence.

Here are the top five reasons why this bill is good for America’s gun consumers:

1) This bill would protect gun consumers from being ripped off or injured.

Many gun consumers and bystanders have been injured or killed by defective or hazardously-designed guns. For example:

• One gun consumer took his .22 Ruger revolver with him on a fishing trip. He was sitting on a rock when the gun fell from his holster, struck a rock, and discharged. The bullet lodged in his bladder, damaging vital nerves and rendering him impotent.

The user’s manual specifically recommends leaving the chamber under the hammer empty – precisely for this reason. I’d imagine that was an old-model Single-six. Gun enthusiasts know it, the instruction manual is pretty clear about it. And the manufacturer has since changed the design – voluntarily – and converted all of the older models that customers have sent in for conversion – for free. It’s not the gun’s fault, it’s user error.

• Mike Lewy was unloading his Remington Model 700 rifle in his basement apartment. As he moved the safety to the fire position in order to lift the bolt handle to eject a chambered cartridge, the gun discharged. The bullet went through the ceiling and struck his mother, who was shot in the upper left leg and required hospitalization for more than a month.

User error again. Mike’s an idiot. Rule #1 – always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction. He didn’t. Rule #5 – don’t trust mechanical safeties – they can fail. He should have cleared the weapon outdoors, safely and not tried to do it where it wasn’t safe.

• Carlton Norrell was changing a tire when a close friend, William Kerr, accidentally dropped his .41 Magnum Old Model revolver. The bullet struck Mr. Norrell in the temple and drilled in a straight line across the front of his skull. Mr. Norrell died eight days later.

A .41? I’m amazed he wasn’t dead on the spot. These guys really have it in for Ruger single-actions, don’t they? (And what’s with the dropsies?) It’s a design characteristic of old revolvers. ALL old revolvers. Ruger has since changed the design voluntarily (much to the disgust of purists, many of whom did not have theirs converted.) The modern copies of the Colt Single Action Army will do the same thing if you have a live round under the hammer. The transfer-bar ignition system and the hammer block are relative newcomers to gun design. Frame or hammer-mounted firing pins are found on all older revolvers (single or double-action), and there are a huge number of revolvers out there without either. It’s not a design flaw, and you cannot convince me that a Federal bureaucracy would have accelerated the implementation of the design change. But this legislation could force, for example, Smith & Wesson to retrofit literally millions of old guns at their own expense, thus bankrupting the company. But we’re not supposed to understand that.

This bill would give the Department of Justice authority to set safety standards; require gun manufacturers to repair, replace, recall, or refund the purchase price of defective guns; and to mandate warnings.

And the Department of Justice is qualified to set those standards, why? The gun industry already repairs, replaces, and recalls defective guns voluntarily. Read some of the gun magazines sometime. The recall notices are not common, but they are there. For example this recall of the Vektor pistol. Now THAT’s a defective gun, and why the CFA didn’t use it as an example is beyond me (unless, of course, no one was actually SHOT with one accidentally.) Now, why is it necessary for the Justice Department to get involved again?

This bill would also require that all guns be labeled to ensure that defective guns could be identified and traced.

They are already. By federal law all firearms are marked with a serial number that is recorded with the BATFE. But you’re not supposed to know that.

Currently, the only protection gun consumers are afforded against manufacturers of defective guns is to file a lawsuit after the victim has been injured or killed.

Excuse me, but isn’t that “the only protection” consumers have for defective products now? You’re not changing anything except adding another layer of bureaucracy on top. But that’s the point, isn’t it?

2) This bill would provide gun consumers with much-needed information.

Currently there exists no coordinated data collection on gun injuries and deaths that includes vital information such as the specific type of gun, caliber and source. This legislation would create a Firearms Violence Information and Research Clearinghouse to collect and analyze data regarding gun-related death and injury. This kind of data is essential to identify guns that are exceptionally likely to be involved in gun-related injury or death, and to notify gun consumers of the risks associated with such guns.

Yes, I’m sure that would be it’s only purpose. Let’s spend a few hundred million to find out that most gun deaths are attributable to old Smith & Wesson .38’s and inexpensive 9mm automatics (homicide and suicide), and that most accidental gun deaths are hunting related. That’ll be swell.

3) This bill would give gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process.

Currently, gun consumers have no say in the few voluntary standards developed by the industry. This legislation gives gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process by allowing them to petition the Attorney General of the Justice Department to amend or enforce specific regulations.

Um, I’m a “gun consumer” and the last thing I want is a bill allowing the general public “a voice in the regulatory process.” We’re outnumbered by the general population and this is an open door to regulating firearms out of existence. Maryland, for example, is doing exactly that with its performance requirements that restrict what guns can be sold there. The requirements have cause Beretta, for example, to stop selling there. You know – Beretta. The company that makes the sidearm carried by US military forces worldwide. Not safe enough for Maryland.

4) This bill would shield gun consumers from unreasonably unsafe products.

Currently, no federal agency has the authority to ban firearms technology that poses an unreasonable threat to gun consumers and the public. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to ban the manufacture and transfer of specific guns and related products only if the agency determines that no other remedy would prevent unreasonable risk of injury.

(Deep breath:)THEY’RE FIREARMS! THEY ARE DEVICES DESIGNED TO HURL SMALL METAL PROJECTILES AT HIGH VELOCITY IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION THE BARREL IS POINTED! Now, define “unreasonably unsafe.” I’d imagine that, for the Department of Justice, that would eventually end up meaning “going BANG! when the trigger is pulled.”

Currently, gun manufacturers get around federal limits by cosmetically altering restricted guns to pass a basic “sporting purposes” test. This bill authorizes the Department of Justice to set uniform standards for guns with legitimate sporting purposes to distinguish them from guns prone for criminal use, such as modified assault weapons.

THERE we go! Let me translate that for you: “The legislature wasn’t able to pass a bill that really outlawed those eeeeevil assault weapons, so we need to set up a bureaucracy that can, without legislative oversight, ban any gun they decide looks too eeeeeevil. ” For instance, the recently introduced Smith & Wesson X-frame .500 S&W Magnum revolver that got so many gun-grabbers panties in a wad would be fodder for this kind of “uniform standards” restriction.

5) This bill would safeguard access to guns with legitimate sporting purposes.

And last I checked, the Second Amendment doesn’t say a damned thing about “sporting purposes.”

Just say “NO” to the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. It’s not about safety, and it’s not about protecting firearm consumers. It’s about restricting the right to arms some more.

“Gun-Polluted” America?

KevinLeave a comment

Well here’s a lovely little editorial. From the Charleston, West Virginia Gazette comes this screed against guns. Let us fisk:

Unsafe

No hiding from guns

WHEN the West Virginia School Boards Association met last week at the Charleston Marriott, a panel discussion was held on a deadly topic: how to protect board meetings from attackers like the disturbed employee who brought a 75-shot AK-47 to a Kanawha County board session, plus buckets of gasoline, and wounded a teacher before he was subdued. (The assailant also had two pistols and a rifle in his pickup truck parked outside.)

The assembled school board members from around the state realized that dozens of Kanawha people might have been killed at the July 17 session. Only swift tackles by four brave administrators prevented a massacre. Ever since, armed police have been posted at Kanawha school board meetings, a $14,000 video surveillance system has been ordered, and electronic door locks are being considered.

Let’s see: instead of resigning themselves to be victims, four administrators decided to be a pack, not a herd, and defend themselves and others. They didn’t rely on “the authorities” to save them, they did it themselves – at great personal risk. BUT, you’ll note, they did it by physically attacking the perp because (obviously) none of the four defenders (or any of the other potential victims) was armed. What subsequent action did they take in order to protect themselves in the future? THEY EMPLOY AN ARMED GUARD. Nobody (apparently) bothered to get a concealed-carry permit, instead they HIRED OUT their protection. So if someone in the future wants to do what the original perp tried, all he has to do is cap THE GUARD. The herd will then be suitably cowed (no pun intended) and he can carry out whatever nefarious plan he wants.

At the statewide conference, lawyer Kimberly Croyle told the delegates that America suffers an average of 20 workplace murders per week, and 18,000 woundings. The worst death rate is among defenseless taxi drivers, she said, but plenty of other killings happen in offices and plants — usually committed by dismissed employees, angry clients or estranged husbands stalking their wives. Most of the slaughter is by guns.

Really? “Usually committed by dismissed employees, angry clients or estranged husbands”? I thought the overwhelming majority of “workplace murders” were robberies. I’d really like to see her source data for this.

It’s extremely difficult to predict which person will go on a murder rampage, she said. Therefore, all organizations should have “zero tolerance” for threats — and also have attack drills, like fire drills. Employees should rehearse how to barricade themselves safely and dial 911.

More “zero tolerance” idiocy, and more “don’t defend yourself – you’re not qualified” preaching from our self-appointed superiors.

Fellow lawyer John Teare gave school administrators some practical advice: When it’s necessary to discipline or fire a problem employee, try to avoid humiliating or enraging the worker. Use a gentle voice. Let the employee talk, without a dismissive brushoff. Do it at the end of the day, after other employees have gone, so the dismissee can remove personal possessions without being watched by fellow workers. At day’s end, he said, employees are weary and less likely to explode in anger.

This I can agree with. I have never understood why it was necessary to publicly humiliate someone if it’s necessary to fire them. Regardless of whether it will render them less likely to come back and shoot the place up, it takes very little effort to treat people as well as you can.

Our editor, one of the panelists, told the state delegates that workplace massacres are so rare and unpredictable that safeguards are dubious. For example, if the Kanawha school board had been shielded by metal detectors and armed guards, the killer could have pulled his pickup to the front curb and used his four guns to mow down people leaving the meeting. Likewise, it’s doubtful that detectors and guards would have deterred the psychotic students who invaded Columbine High School.

Holy shit, a voice of reason. And he’s an editor of the newspaper, no less!

However, Kanawha board member Bill Raglin replied that he worked many years in dangerous chemical plants, where strict safety practices prevented deadly spills.

Except “deadly spills” are accidents. “Strict safety practices” do nothing to prevent deliberate acts – and Mr. Raglin should certainly understand that. Apple? Meet orange.

Of course, Raglin is correct that intelligent security measures should be used. They may avert some murders. But the irrational nature of attacks — and the easy availability of deadly guns — mean that no Americans truly are safe.

“Easy availability” or not, the fact of the matter is no Americans are truly safe – and if you understand that fact then you understand that the government cannot protect you. YOU are responsible for your safety. But that’s not the mantra of this piece.

When a disturbed school employee can arm himself with a 75-shot assault weapon, two pistols and a rifle, planning to wipe out a school board meeting, who’s really safe? When deranged students can bring guns to school to kill teachers and fellow students, who’s safe?

When they can bring pipe bombs and cans of gasoline, who’s safe? When they can load a Ryder truck with fertilizer and diesel fuel (ANFO), who’s safe? When someone can drive a three-ton Cadillac through a crowd, who’s safe? When men armed with box cutters can hijack airliners and fly them into buildings WHO’S SAFE? Wake up. The world isn’t safe. Never has been.

Gun-polluted America has a murder rate much worse than nations that protect people by controlling illegal weapons.

And there are countries with strict gun control with murder rates far higher, too. (But those are “third-world” countries and don’t count – right?)

But America’s “right to bear arms” (Note the ubiquitous “scare quotes” – A “right to bear arms?” Oh, please. Don’t be gauche.) lobby is so strong that timid U.S. politicians won’t impose safeguards. Even if they did, it might require generations to cleanse the country of concealed pistols and other unlicensed murder instruments.

Note that the author completely ignores the possibility that “cleansing the country” of “unlicensed murder instruments” is IMPOSSIBLE – as has been AMPLY demonstrated by England’s experience. “Facts? Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind’s made up! Guns are eeeeeevil!“

Except, of course, when they’re in the hands of our proper masters.

Edited to add: And note the characterisation of “concealed pistols” as “murder weapons”. This completely disregards the fact that in every state where concealed carry is “shall issue” homicide rates have gone down. The people who have permits and carry are not homicidal. But this editorial paints them with the same bloody brush as the Columbine killers.

Agenda? What agenda?

Therefore, Americans are condemned to live with the daily risk of gun murders, and the rare risk of gun massacres.

Yup. And, as I pointed out before, we’re willing to live with that. It beats giving up our personal sovereignty and making the mistake a free people get to make only once.

(And, of course, the editorial is unsigned.)

KevinLeave a comment

“Never Have So Many Been So Wrong About So Much” for So Long

Apologies to Sec. Rumsfeld, but this guy is so stereotypical it’s almost a parody.

His name is Scott Bateman, and he’s a freelance cartoonist. Allow me to fisk his three most recent political cartoons:

Actually here Scott is illustrating two ignorances – the general public’s and his own. First, the majority of Americans believe that Saddam was in some way responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which is not true. But is the war on Iraq part of the War on Terror? Absolutely. I invite you to read (if you haven’t already) two excellent pieces: Our World-Historical Gamble by Lee Harrison, and Steven Den Beste’s outline on the cause of the War on Terror. Yes, Scott, the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror.

Note also the typical liberal’s respect for the “little people” – those they want government to rigidly control for their own good.

A government run, of course, by caring, compassionate liberals who believe that everyone is equal. But they’re the “More Equal,” of course. The rest of us are obviously idiots.

Next we have this one:

Note the unselfconscious use of the word “quagmire.” The invasion of Afghanistan was supposed to be a quagmire. The 21-day assault on Iraq was supposed to be a quagmire. Neither was. Now that we’ve overthrown the Taliban, unseated Saddam, kicked the crap out of Al Qaeda, and prevented any follow-up terror attacks on American soil for two years, Mr. Bateman characterises this as “screwing up badly.” I don’t know what planet he’s living on, but apparently it isn’t this one. Unless he’s in France, of course.

If all you see is what the newspapers and national networks show, I can understand his pessimism, but reports from the people on the ground aren’t so one-sided. They see the people of Iraq overwhelmingly happy that we’ve freed them. LTCR (select) Smash has this anecdote. Sgt. Pontifex explains that California is not limited to the L.A. city limits, nor is Iraq limited to the Sunni Triangle. Then there are these four reports from Basra. There’s much, much more out there if you just take a little time and look.

The “real world,” Mr. Bateman?

Pot? Meet Kettle.

Finally, we have this, most recent piece:

Note that none of Mr. Bateman’s “interviewees” are apparently among the majority of “idiots” he decries in the first cartoon. No, in this case they’re exclusively limited to the moonbat minority.

The first says: “Everything’s just as it was before 9/11.” Really? 3,000 people aren’t dead? The twin towers are still standing? The Taliban still rules Afghanistan and still protects Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Saddam and Sons still terrorize the Iraqis? We haven’t killed seven and captured five of Al Qaeda’s top 31 people? (That’s over a third.)

The second says: “We’ve thrown two countries into total chaos.” Is that a fact? Not according to what I’ve been reading. Of course, we have freed them from murderous totalitarian regimes, so I can see why the caring, compassionate liberal would be upset by that. (See “More Equal,” above.)

The third says: “The Bush Administration has failed miserably.” Afghanistan: nine weeks. Taliban: removed. Iraq – three weeks. Saddam: unseated. Uday and Qusay: Dead and Deader. Bin Laden: running for his life. Al Qaeda: severely damaged. Recent terror attacks on U.S. soil – zero.

This is “failing miserably?” No wonder nobody knows who the Democratic Presidential candidates are.

The fourth says: “I’d feel way safer if I could cower with Dick Cheney in that undisclosed location.”

No, you’d feel way safer if we’d just wrung our hands, tried to “understand why they hate us,” and attempted to buy the forgiveness of the Islamists. I’ve got news for you, Scott: You’re way safer today than you were two years ago. All the radical Islamists are trying to get into Iraq and Afghanistan to keep us from destroying their fantasy ideology.

You’re safer, but apparently not any brighter.

(Bateman’s a Kucinich supporter. Why am I not surprised?)

Please, Allow Me to Fisk…

KevinLeave a comment

Instapundit pointed to this USA Today piece on the political third-rail that gun control has become. I thought it was interesting, but (of course) I had some comments:

Gun-control debate gets muzzled

On the same day last month, five factory workers in Mississippi were shot and killed by a co-worker and five people in a family in Bakersfield, Calif., were killed by gunfire.

Not too long ago, dramatic slayings such as these would have created a new chapter in the national debate over gun control. There would have been angry speeches in Congress and new proposals to crack down on firearms.

But today, there is mostly silence.

That’s a point I made in an earlier essay.

Democrats, who believe that their calls for gun controls might have cost them the White House in 2000, are less willing to take on the gun lobby. Polls suggest that public fears about terrorism have helped mute the debate.

Meanwhile, the gun industry is racking up legislative wins. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, says there are not enough votes in the House to renew Congress’ 1994 ban on certain assault weapons when it expires next year.

I certainly hope so. I was pissed off enough when it passed. I’d really be P.O.’d if Dubya signed the renewal.

And now, gun rights supporters are closing in on what probably would be their most enduring victory.

The Senate is close to passing a bill that would shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from civil lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. The measure, which the House passed 285-140 as 63 Democrats voted with the GOP majority, is an effort to shield the gun industry from the type of lawsuits that have been successful against tobacco and asbestos companies.

The popularity of the bill — it has 54 co-sponsors in the Senate, including several top Democrats — underscores the changed political dynamics of gun control. Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., has signed on, and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., might do so.

Which would be a pretty fair gauge of just how at-risk Daschle thinks his seat is.

The political divide over gun control has long cut geographically: Rural areas generally oppose greater controls on firearms, and urban areas generally favor them. Republicans usually oppose restrictions; Democrats usually back them. But Democrats in rural areas where hunting is a tradition have a tough time winning elections if they are seen by voters as anti-gun.

Let me interject something here: I know that the term “anti-gun” is just shorthand reporterese, but realistically the term successfully redefines the issue. It isn’t that the electorate thinks the politician is “anti-gun,” but that the electorate believes the politician wants to disarm law-abiding citizens. That isn’t anti-gun, that’s anti-citizen – and the electorate has generally known it. Since 911, a lot more of the electorate has woken to that fact.

That longtime party dilemma came into sharp focus after Democrat Al Gore, a supporter of gun controls, lost the key states of Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia en route to his narrow defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Some Democrats believe Gore’s stance on guns was to blame.

Some Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents thought so too.

Democrats became even more reticent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made improving security a national priority.

When Republican pollster David Winston asked Americans about plans to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit, he found that married women with children — traditionally the strongest voices favoring gun control — were among the biggest supporters.

“The soccer mom who wants to gets guns off the playgrounds through gun control is the same mom who wants pilots to be armed ” he said. “The dynamic has changed. . . . It’s putting it in the context of safety.”

And didn’t that shock their socks off! Hell, we’ve always put it in the context of safety. And for that matter so has our opposition. We say it increases your safety, they say it increases your risk. Looks like the soccer-mom contingent has made its choice.

Immunity legislation

Today, much of the conflict over gun control is focused on the litigation bill that is before Congress.

The bill would stop pending civil lawsuits and prevent future claims by victims of gun crimes against companies that sold, imported or manufactured the weapons used in such crimes. Similar legislation has been passed in 32 states. But opponents say the federal proposal is more sweeping and could prevent the firearms industry from being sued in almost any circumstance.

“I would say the breadth of the immunity granted is unprecedented,” says Dennis Henigan, legal counsel to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “No other industry enjoys the kind of protection from legal actions that this bill would grant the gun industry.”

So sayeth the mouthpiece of the organization that promotes the book Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns by Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. What do you expect him to say?

The Brady Center, which is providing legal assistance in about two dozen lawsuits against the industry, says the bill would stop a lawsuit filed by relatives of those slain in a series of attacks that included the sniper shootings last fall in the Washington, D.C., area.

As well it should. The whole point of these lawsuits is to bankrupt the manufacturers since the gunban control groups have failed to shut them down legislatively.

Representatives of the firearms industry say legitimate businesses that sell guns legally should not be held responsible when the guns end up in criminals’ hands. They say the legislation before Congress is needed to protect gunmakers and dealers from bankruptcy, which has become a threat as the number of lawsuits against the industry increases.

Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Foundation, says gun dealers or manufacturers have not lost a case yet but have spent more than $100 million in legal fees defending themselves.

Now, it might be that my tinfoil hat is on a bit askew, but was it an innocent mistake to screw up Lawrence Keane’s position? He’s Vice President and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. So, he represents sport shooters, not gang-bangers. OK?

“If a dealer sells a legal product to a consumer who has undergone a criminal background check and filled out the federally required forms, and (who) later gives that gun to someone else to commit a crime, that dealer should not be sued,” Keane says. Dealers or manufacturers who violate gun laws should be subject to lawsuits, he says. But Henigan counters that if the federal bill becomes law, the victims’ families in the sniper lawsuit would have to prove that the owner of the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., willfully violated gun laws involving the specific gun used in the slayings.

Well, HORRORS! Apparently Mr. Henigan believes that, simply because the owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply should pay regardless of the facts.

That could be difficult to prove in court, Henigan says. The shop owner, Brian Borgelt, has claimed that the rifle allegedly used by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo was shoplifted.

The facts are that Brian Borgelt ran a shoddy operation, that the BATF knew he ran a shoddy operation, but the BATF only recently yanked Mr. Borgelt’s license because of all the publicity. It would seem to me that the party that needs to be sued for not doing their job is the BATF, but we know how likely that is. According to a Seattle Times report, Lee Boyd Malvo confessed that he stole the gun from the gun shop. (Original story is not available on-line, but reference to it is in this one.) Yes, by all appearances, Bull’s Eye was badly run, but it’s the job of the BATF to control that – not stomp kittens. If Malvo had fingered Borgelt for selling the gun under the table, then there’d be grounds for a suit, and the “immunity” legislation wouldn’t save him.

But somebody please explain to me why (other than perceived deep pockets) Bushmaster is being sued? How is it their fault?

The bill to shield gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits was passed by the House in April, while much of the nation’s attention was focused on Iraq.

With the unspoken: “Those sneaky bastards!”

In the Senate, sponsors quickly signed on. Opponents, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., promise to filibuster the bill to try to prevent it from coming up for a vote. But sponsors need just six more votes, for a total of 60, to end a filibuster and force a vote.

Tobacco model

Litigation against the gun industry has come on the heels of lawsuits that cost tobacco companies billions of dollars in settlements.

From an industry that can support those kinds of losses. The gun industry in America is not so large, regardless of our love of guns. The tactic isn’t to milk the companies for everything they can, it’s to bleed them to death through lawsuit after lawsuit, regardless of the outcome. That’s why the legislation is necessary.

In 1998, Chicago, which had banned the sale of handguns, sued the firearms industry. The city claimed that the industry had created a public nuisance through sales patterns that allowed guns to be diverted to criminals. Within two years, 33 other cities and counties sued on similar grounds.

There is no count of the number of gun crime victims who have sued, but their claims include allegations of unsafe design and negligent distribution.

And they can still sue for unsafe design – but not if the gun goes off when the trigger is pulled. Negligent distribution? That one doesn’t fly anywhere.

So far, none of the lawsuits has been successful.

Gee, I wonder why?

Suits in New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta, Wilmington, Del., and Camden County, N.J., have been dismissed. Boston and Cincinnati voluntarily dropped their claims, in part because of cost.

And remember, they’re doing it on the taxpayer’s back. The gun industry isn’t.

About a dozen of the local lawsuits are still working their way through the courts. Henigan says he is heartened by several appellate decisions that have allowed suits in Ohio, Illinois and New Jersey to go to trial. But he believes that much of the pending litigation could be dismissed if Congress passes the immunity bill.

Even without the legislation, advocates of holding gunmakers and dealers liable for gun violence may have trouble convincing juries of it.

Peter Schuck, a Yale Law School professor, says gun litigation differs from tobacco litigation in key ways. Juries, he says, have little sympathy for cigarette companies, but they do for gunmakers.

Establishing liability on the part of the gun industry, he says, will be more difficult. “It is almost universally accepted that smoking causes lung cancer,” he says, but linking gunmakers and dealers to violence is more difficult to prove.

Perhaps because they can’t? And they know it?

Oh, Bite Me, Clayton!

KevinLeave a comment

I really respect Clayton Cramer – most of the time. His tireless defense of the Second Amendment, his exhaustive research into the history of the right to arms awes me, some times. But he has a serious bug up his ass where it comes to homosexuality, and this post is really over the top. Let me fisk:

There Are Days That I Despair for America

Me too, Clayton, but usually only when some Darwin Award candidate ends up in public office.

Along with the absurd “historical” arguments based on Puritans being gay-friendly, one of the other arguments for overturning the Texas sodomy statute was that sodomy laws were originally part of a larger system of traditional, religious sexual morality laws–the rest of which no longer exist. Texas, for example, had repealed its bestiality statute in 1973, when the legislature wrote the dearly departed homosexual sodomy law. What were they thinking? Did bestiality have so much support in Texas in 1973 that the legislature felt like legalizing it?

I don’t know. I hear a lot of Texan jokes…

Most Americans purport to be Christians–a sizeable fraction identifying themselves as evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. Yet American life is built increasingly around the unlimited pursuit of sex: premarital, extramarital, and postmarital. A lot of Americans have taken marriage vows that they asserted were permanent–and yet in the last 20 years, I have seen divorce become the norm–even among regular churchgoers.

Which pretty much puts to lie the assertion that these people really are Christians, doesn’t it? There certainly seems to be a large quantity of church-going seculars in this country.

Unfortunately, America is a fundamentally hypocritical and depraved nation. There are some who see the Lawrence decision as the beginning of the end of America. They are wrong. It is really just the final blow. There will be some more shocking decisions of the courts, and I’m sure that there will be considerable popular outrage when the Court rules that states must offer gay marriage. There will be even more outrage when the Court rules that age of consent laws violate the Constitutional rights of children to express their sexuality, and bestiality and incest statutes have no rational basis. I’m not sure that the Court will ever rule that child molesters have a right to rape, but in practice, it will become so common and so lightly punished that it won’t much matter that it is still illegal. There’s an interesting article here about how the courts are scrapping the last vestiges of decency from heterosexual marriage, by removing any incentive to fidelity.

The die is now cast. The only way that America can reverse course on these matters is for Americans as a whole to give up on depravity and selfishness. That will take a horrific wake-up call. It seemed for a while as though 9/11 would be that wake-up call. For a few weeks, I saw clear evidence of a nation waking up to the very real danger that every day could be your last, and the need to live based on that. But Americans have returned to their old ways–the desire to let the news/entertainment media tell them what to think, and what to feel takes precedence over anything deeper.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

America is populated by human beings – and human beings have: committed genocide, practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, slaughtered millions in the name of religion, engaged in orgies and done other things as bad or worse throughout history. Human beings have also created beauty, expanded freedoms, increased our life expectancy and quality of life, conquered diseases, travelled to the moon and other things unmatched in history.

The fact that America no longer views homosexuality as a sin worth stoning someone to death over is not a sign of the apocalypse.

I, for one, am all for replacing Christian morality with objective reasoning when it comes to American jurisprudence. “Homosexuality is wrong because God says it is” isn’t good enough for me. The seculars are the majority, no matter how much and how many of them claim to be “Christians.”

John Adams wrote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think he was wrong. I think it requires a moral people, but not necessarily a religious people. It’s quite possible to be moral in his meaning without being religious, but impossible to be religious in his meaning without also being moral. What Clayton protests is a change in morals from those dictated by the various Christian sects. And yes, there is immorality – there always has been. Yes, immorality is attractive to people who can’t or won’t think logically. But Clayton asserts that the majority of America is “fundamentally hypocritical and depraved.” Well perhaps by his morality, but not by mine. There are a lot of people capable of logical thought who have decided that – prior to and regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision – what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn’t the government’s business. Our morality, based on logic not on religious decree, says so. And you know what? The rights of the individual are more important than the will of any majority. That’s the basis of this country, not the Ten Commandments.

Cox and Forkum have an interesting cartoon up on their site, and a copy of a letter to the editor of the New York Sun from a Dr. Harry Binswanger. Dr. Binswager says this about the recent Supreme Court decision that has Clayton’s underwear in a wad:

“Scalia in his dissent on the sodomy decision writes: ‘It is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste.’

“Sounds like he’s trying to keep meddlesome government out of people’s lives doesn’t it? But look at the switch he has pulled: the ‘judgments’ he wishes to protect are the laws passed by the Texas legislature — laws arresting individuals for behavior that, whatever one thinks of it, is clearly within their rights. The meddlesome ‘governing caste’ is the Texas legislature, which the Supreme Court properly told: stop arresting individuals for private, peaceful, consensual activity.

“Yes, I’m sure the Texas law does reflect the will of the majority of Texans. So what? Slavery represented the will of the majority in the ante-bellum South. Hitler’s Reich reflected the will of the majority of Germans in the Nazi era.

“Unlimited majority rule is a form of statism, not Americanism. Our system, contrary to Scalia’s notion, holds individual rights above the power of any majority to infringe, ‘and among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ A right is the individual’s protection against the will of any collective, whether that collective is called ‘the State,’ ‘the people,’ or ‘Das Volk.'”

This is no longer a Christian nation. That, in my opinion, does not foreshadow the coming of the Four Horsemen, no matter how much Pat Robertson beseeches God-uh.

More Control Loop Feedback from the Blogosphere

KevinLeave a comment

Mr. Harris over at Ipse Dixit has an excellent analysis and disassembly of Michael Kinsley’s latest Slate piece, “Return of the Class War”. This is why I loved reading his stuff back on Themestream and why I’m happy to find him still writing. An excerpt:

Gaze, my friends, at the living, beating heart of the Left. Here, in its natural habitat (an op-ed in an elitist, left-leaning publication), is the very essence of liberalism: The care and feeding of envy. No-one is wealthy but that they were blessed by “the luck of the draw.” Capitalism in America is a massive, US$10 trillion lottery in which the lucky few get to drive Rolls-Royces while the rest of us toil and sweat to make their lives of ease and idleness possible. But they accept this dreary lot because – hey! who knows? – maybe one day they’ll get the lucky hand and be given a key to the secret inner kingdom.

The facts: 80% of American millionaires are self-made. The average American millionaire earns US$150,000/year and drives a Ford. He lives modestly and saves 15% of what he earns. But you’d never know that reading to this quasi-Marxist pabulum.

Go read every damned word.

Oh, and I happen to work for two of those 80-percenters. In 1981 they risked everything they had to build a company – the company I’ve worked for the last 17 years, and that pays me a pretty damned good salary. I don’t begrudge them their money at all. They busted their asses for it, and I helped them get where they are.

And if I want to take the risk they did, perhaps in ten or fifteen years I too can have the kind of income they draw now. This is America – land of opportunity, not the land of handouts.

I Think I’LL Vote for Kucinich in the Primary, Too.

KevinLeave a comment

I am, after all, registered as a Democrat in Arizona.

ISN’Tapundit has an outstanding fisking of a recent Salon.com column on the “Take Back America” conference. Apparently Dipnut actually paid for the Salon.com “premium” (and I use that term tongue-in-cheek) service so he had access to the entire piece. I don’t, so I won’t link to it here. The link is available on Isntapundit, if you too help support that…site.

Carol Moseley Braun is a taco short of a combination plate, but Kucinich actually has a following, according to this piece. Nowhere has the term “barking moonbat” been more apt.

Bush v. Moonbat Kucinich? Bring it on! (Perhaps Dennis can pick Carol as his running-mate. That would be too perfect.)

“Guns offer false security” Says a Grad Student

KevinLeave a comment

AlphaPatriot sent me this USAToday op-ed by Kimberly Shearer Palmer, hoping, I suspect, that I’d fisk it.

Who am I to let a reader down?

Let’s begin:

Before I held a revolver, I thought only police officers and psychopaths shot guns. Guns seemed uncontrollable objects that could inflict death at any moment; I preferred to avoid them.

Ooh! “police officers and psychopaths!” I ought to drag out the Freud quote.

Then I learned how to shoot. My friends arranged a trip to a shooting range outside Chicago. Our instructor, a former police officer, taught us how to stand and point, hunching our shoulders for accuracy. We shot at the target silhouettes’ heart and lungs before aiming for its head. In real life, our instructor explained, our attackers might wear bulletproof vests.

One of my absolute favorite quotes belongs to blogger and author Teresa Nielsen Hayden: “Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” Seems she discovered the truth of that.

I was thrilled with my new power. A technological advantage now would let me fight the bad guys, even ones bigger and stronger that I am — or so I thought. Guns give women equal killing ability, but they also draw us into the dangerous illusion that owning one makes us safe.

Then her instructor did a piss-poor job of explaining what a gun can and cannot do. Owning a gun doesn’t make you safe. NOTHING makes you “SAFE.”

Owning a fire-extinguisher doesn’t make you safe from fire, either. It simply provides you a tool in the event that one occurs. Just as, in the event of a fire, an extinguisher provides you the means to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property until the fire department arrives, a firearm provides you the means to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property in the event of a crime until the police can arrive. But you have to have more than that. You need to know what the tool can do and cannot do – be it a gun or a fire extinguisher. You have to have it available – keeping it locked up and/or empty or simply where you cannot reach it in an emergency renders it useless. You have to know that you will be able to use it if necessary – if you don’t believe you can, having it won’t do you any good.

There’s more to owning a gun for self-defense than simply purchasing it.

More women are using guns. The number of National Rifle Association Women on Target programs — shooting clinics for women only — more than doubled between 2001 and 2002, says Stephanie Henson, manager of the NRA’s women’s programs. Last year, clinics were held in 38 states. Henson says women’s interest is so strong that the NRA recently launched Woman’s Outlook, its first magazine aimed just at women.

Self-defense is the reason the overwhelming majority of Women & Guns’ readers are interested in using guns, says Peggy Tartaro, the magazine’s executive editor.

Then I hope like hell they’re getting better training than Ms. Palmer got.

But gun popularity among women is based on two misconceptions. First, gun advocates often call guns the great equalizer between men and women. In reality, according to a new study by the University of California at Davis, women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not. While this may be partly explained by the fact that women who fear an attack are more apt to buy a gun, the study shows guns often fail to help women protect themselves.

Perhaps because they don’t understand, as Ms. Palmer does not understand, what having a gun for self-defense requires? Where before she seemed to believe that guns were some kind of magic talisman OF evil, now she seems to believe that they are some kind of magic talisman to WARD OFF evil. They are neither.

“Having a gun gives women a false sense of security,” says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. “Guns can be taken away, and women can be killed by their own guns.”

And Naomi Seligman is an unbiased source of fact, I suppose? How often are “guns taken away” from someone? Approximately 1% of the time. If you have a gun and are prepared to use it, no one’s going to take it from you.

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise “weak” women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Except according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service “(W)hile 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent.” Defending yourself with a gun provides the best chance of escaping injury yourself. A 110 pound woman against a 180 pound man means, even if she gets away, she’s probably going to be injured.

A popular new form of self-defense training simulates attacks on the street and in the bedroom by male “attackers” wearing protective padding. This realistic-training approach includes verbal and psychological elements that prepare women for real-life situations. Fighting off a man in a simulated attack is much more likely to resemble a real incident than shooting at a target-range silhouette.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re going to carry a gun for self-protection, then training for real-life situations is an excellent idea. But that training should not denegrate the advantage that having a gun provides. Consider, if you are about to be assaulted; robbed or carjacked, and your training has prepared you, which is more likely to put off your attacker: a can of pepper spray, or a .38 revolver aimed at his abdomen? And what if he has a firearm? Which is more likely to deter him then?

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back. The course also taught us how to avoid violent situations and how to de-escalate encounters before they become deadly. Like Jennifer Lopez’s character in the 2002 movie Enough, in which she learns to fight to protect herself and her daughter against her abusive husband, we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

More magical thinking. She felt more confident. Yahoo to Jennifer Lopez, but I’d like to remind you that that was a movie. However, we have actual stories like this one where a woman awoke with a man on top of her. She took HIS gun and killed him with it. “In this case, the victim made the decision to struggle and fight back…She made the decision that she was going to survive this incident.”

It’s about mental attitude. A gun is just part of that. More stories:

In December, 2002 in Tucson AZ, Martha Lynn Chaney shot her abusive boyfriend when he tried to force his way into her home. (Story no longer available online)

In March, 2002 in Colville WA, 71 year-old Bethan Scutchfield, an invalid woman, shot and killed a 28 year old man who was physically assaulting her. The man was her granddaughter’s ex-boyfriend who was violating a restraining order.

December 2001, A LaCenter OR woman, Cheryl Swenson, shot her abusive husband when he broke down a bedroom door in order to continue beating her.

The June 11 issue of the Indiana StarPress reports that Charlotte Johnson shot and wounded her ex-boyfriend in self-defense.

WZZM news in Grand Rapids, MI reports that Robin Trumbull used a handgun to defend herself from an attacker.

The March 23 edition of the Macomb Daily online edition reports that a 40 year old woman was the victim of an attempted robbery, but she told the robber: “If you’re going to shoot me then do it, ’cause I’m definitely going to kill you,” when she pulled her 9mm handgun on him. He ran.

Considering guns as women’s only shot at self-defense is like eating fat-free cookies to ward off obesity; they can make the situation even worse. Instead of buying a gun, I’m sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

Try a combination, Ms. Palmer. “Street smarts” and a gun will protect you better than “street smarts” without one. But a gun without “street smarts” is still better than having neither, so long as you’re willing to defend yourself.

“When I Want a Legal Opinion on Gun Control, I Ask a Doctor!”

KevinLeave a comment

 or “For the Best Advice on Health Care, Consult the NRA!”

I downloaded the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy “Fact Sheet” (and those quotes are there for ALL the reasons) on “Myths and Facts: Lawsuits brought by Cities or Injured Persons Against the Gun Industry.”

Allow me to fisk it. (Hey, it’s lunchtime. I’ve got an hour to kill.)

“Since 1998 more than 30 cities and counties in the United States have filed lawsuits against the firearm industry for the deaths, injuries, and other costs associated with guns.”

Um, no. Associated with the misuse of guns. That’s a critical distinction which I will return to.

“Myth: Guns are a lawful product so manufacturers should not be held liable for selling them.”

This is a myth? Anheuser Busch isn’t “held liable” for selling beer, even though alcohol is misused and is a component in more death than guns ever were. Ford isn’t “held liable” for selling cars, though they’re used in the commission of crimes.

FACT: Makers of every other product are subject to at least some liability – especially if they fail to take some reasonable steps to reduce the chance that their product will harm someone. This is how the U.S. legal system works. Guns should be no different.”

Well, THAT clears it up. Question: Don’t gun grabbers control supporters claim that “guns are made solely to kill people?” Um, then how do you “reduce the chance” that a product – designed to kill – will “harm someone?” Don’t think too hard about that – your brain will explode.

You see, the difference here is that the lawsuits are not protesting that guns are defective, but that they’re Effective. If they filed a lawsuit against, say, Lorcin protesting that they made crappy guns that you couldn’t depend on and that would fall apart if you ran more than one magazine through one (assuming you could get a magazine through one) then that would be a product liability suit. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re filing suit because the guns do what they’re designed to do: throw a small metal pellet at high velocity in the direction the weapon is pointed, when the loose nut behind the trigger pulls said trigger.

That’s not a failure of the gun manufacturers, it’s a failure of the operator. Case in point, watch this negligent discharge. There’s not a thing wrong with that gun except the moron with her finger on the trigger. When she pulled it, the gun fired just like it’s designed to do.

They counter:

“Myth: Holding gunmakers liable for injuries caused by guns would be like holding car manufacturers liable for injures caused by drunk drivers.”

Yeah, I just said that. But nooooo they claim:

FACT: It is important to understand that lawsuits against gunmakers do not argue that the manufacturers should be liable simply because they make and sell guns. Instead they argue that there are things the manufacturer could do – but knowingly choose not to do – to make their products less likely to harm children and others, or to be used by criminals. It’s the gun manufacturers’ failure to take these reasonable and feasable steps that the lawsuits assert should make them liable. Put another way: if a car maker designed a car so that even a young child could easily operate it without permission (e.g., it didn’t need a key to start), or marketed the car (somehow) to appeal directly to drunk-drivers, we would think they were liable.”

Well, that’s interesting legerdemain. I’ve seen some of the things they want put on guns to make them “less likely to harm children.” Locks, EXTREMELY heavy triggers, magazine disconnects. Things that POLICE DEPARTMENTS eschew because the primary purpose of a handgun is self-defense, and these things make it likely that when you NEED the gun, it won’t function. It’s interesting that in the laws passed requiring the implementation of “smartgun” technologies – ostensibly to do what these lawsuits are pursuing – the police are EXEMPTED from having to implement the new technology. (Question: Are car manufacturers the subject of lawsuits because the market a product (insanely fast cars) to SPEEDERS?)

Regardless, the court isn’t the place to go in order to force manufacturers to change their products, the legislature is. They’ve tried that and failed. I love this quote from an honest judge:

As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws.” — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985)

Gee, ya THINK? And Judge Buchmeyer isn’t alone.

“The Court finds as a matter of law that the risks associated with the use of a firearm are open and obvious and matters of common knowledge.”
– Judge Ruehlman, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. et al., No. A9902369, 1999 WL 809838, *1 (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct. 7, 1999).

“In the view of this Court, the City’s complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, which this Court is neither inclined nor empowered to do.” Ibid. at *1.

“In substance, the City and its Mayor opt to engage in efforts at arbitrary social reform by invoking the process of the Judicial Branch of Government, where apparently the City perceives, but fails to allege, irreversible failures in the appropriate Legislative Branch(s) of Government….The City should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to overlay or supplement existing civil and criminal ‘gun’ statutes and processes (either state and federal) by means of a series of judicial fiats which, when taken together, would only create a body of ‘judge made gun laws’.”
– Special Judge James J. Richards, Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, Cause No. 45D05-005-CT-243, slip op. 7 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2001).

“The County’s request that the trial court use its injunctive powers to mandate redesign of firearms and declare that the appellees’ business methods create a public nuisance, is an attempt to regulate firearms and ammunition through the medium of the judiciary…. The County’s frustration cannot be alleviated through litigation as the judiciary is not empowered to ‘enact’ regulatory measures in the guise of injunctive relief. The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch of government but to the legislative branch.”
– Judge J.J. Fletcher, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc., 778 So.2d 1042, 1045

There have been 33 lawsuits of this type filed. The majority have been rejected on the grounds Judge Buchmeyer cites, or other grounds having to do with the appropriateness of trying to use the courts to accomplish ends the courts are not there for. A couple have been dropped after wending their way through the appeals system, and a few are still pending. But it only takes one to get a judgement that will put the gun manufacturer(s) out of business, and the cost of fighting these cases is enough to severely wound the manufacturers. And THAT is the goal.

Whoops! Lunchtime is over. I’ll come back to this, as there is more crunchy goodness to fisk.

KevinLeave a comment

Agenda? What Agenda?

CBS weighs in in the person of Dick Meyer with an op-ed (at least they identify it as such, rather than as a news story) entitled: Gunning Down The 2nd Amendment.

The attention-grabbing quote? “Objective truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment does not exist. Practical consensus about its meaning will not endure. The concept of a “well regulated militia” is an anachronism in the 21st century.”

Thank you Baghdad Bob Dick.

Perhaps the concept of the “well regulated militia” is an anachronism, but “the right to keep and bear arms” isn’t.

I’m not going to fisk the entire editorial. I’m a little burned out by the effort my debate response last night required. I’m just going to comment on one other line:

“It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.”

You’re welcome to try, Dick. But unless I’m mistaken not one gun control organization has even suggested attempting that. Now, setting aside the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to enshrine the critical individual rights as inviolable, there is a detailed set of instructions in the Constitution describing how to amend said document. Nobody’s started the process. I cannot help but wonder why? Hell, it would be refreshing if someone would actually try. Instead, they’ve worked for the last fifty-plus years to redefine the Second Amendment to render it meaningless. (It’s old! It’s out of date! It’s anachronistic! It can’t possibly mean today what it meant back then, and we don’t know what it meant back then anyway!)

Oops! Sorry! You’re wrong Dick!

“What the founders intended is unknowable”? Not if you actually study history, Dick. Those “very independent and liberal scholars” (like Laurence Tribe – you know, Al Gore’s lawyer?) who bothered to and who were honest in their evaluation of the evidence (even YOU admit) “came out on the individual rights side.” So even YOU recognize that the Second Amendment is the barrier that must be overcome if you want to pass the kind of gun confiscation control laws you want to implement. So, why are none of the gun control organizations trying to use the law to achieve their ends?

Alan Dershowitz (that well-known conservative gun nut) has said:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

Thanks, Dick, for finally understanding admitting that you have to LEGALLY remove the Constitutional protection of the right to arms BEFORE you eliminate it.

Asshat.