Tag: gun control

Some are More Equal

KevinLeave a comment

Ran across this story this evening, and found this part to be fascinating:

Kenneth Moose, 39, a longtime twin borough resident who now lives in Bridgewater Township, is a former Far Hills police sergeant who, earlier this year, was cleared of charges that he illegally possessed an assault firearm.

—

Moose, 39, served for 14 years with the Far Hills Borough before retiring in December 2002.

Moose’s fitness for police duty was called into question in October 2002, when he was arrested for possessing an M-1 Carbine, a World War II-era firearm classified as a prohibited assault weapon under a 1990 New Jersey law. He had received the .30-caliber semi-automatic weapon from a local resident in September 1990, four months after the assault weapons ban was enacted.

Which makes me wonder what happened to the “local resident” who violated the law by possessing the M1 Carbine four months after the ban was enacted.

He was indicted by a Somerset County grand jury on the weapons charge last December, then cleared of charges in May. At that time, Superior Court Judge Edward Coleman, sitting in Somerville, said state statutes did not bar local police officers from privately owning banned weapons.

Question: Did the law specifically exempt police officers? Did it specifically exempt private ownership? If so, WHY? On what grounds? And if not, didn’t the judge just make law from the bench? What makes local police officers a protected class? Can they privately own banned machineguns? Sawed-off shotguns? Suppressed handguns?

Because the charge was the first of its kind to be brought against a police officer under the assault weapons ban, the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) sided with Moose in a friend of the court brief.

The Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office has appealed the judge’s dismissal of the charges. A hearing date has not yet been scheduled.

I’d be more than a little interested in the outcome of that hearing.

The Brits Remain Clueless About the Failure of Gun Control

KevinLeave a comment

The Brits Remain Clueless About the Failure of Gun Control

At least according to this BBC report. They blame the internet and the postal system as a source of guns (which it very well may be, but how big a source?).

There are lots of interesting links on that page too. Like this one about the recently ended “gun amnesty” where some 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition were handed in.

Now, understand that all legally owned firearms and ammunition are registered. All handguns are banned.

And 43,908 firearms (no information, but you can bet very, very few were registered) were turned in.

And we’re supposed to believe that they were turned in by violent or potentially violent criminals. But according to this story, it didn’t affect the inner cities – which is where the violence is occurring.

So this tells me a couple of things: One, there are a lot of people in England who have (or did have) illegal guns and ammunition, so there is or was a significant amount of civil disobedience regarding these laws. Two, these people aren’t the ones the government needed to worry about. The people the government needs to worry about didn’t hand their guns in.

There were also some interesting bits of data provided in an internal link. I will present them below without comment:

Well no more comment than this: Gun control does not disarm those people willing to commit violent crime. It only disarms their potential victims.

UPDATE: Ravenwood notes that the Brits are also blaming Ebay.

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,

KevinLeave a comment

“To talk of many things:
Of votes –and chads –and democracy–
Of Republics –and of kings–
And why the earth is getting hot–
And when will pigs have wings.”

(With abject apologies to Lewis Carroll.)

Last week I had a couple of posts on the reaction of the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party to the California recall election – specifically those people who post to Democraticunderground.com. Those posts are here and here, with the second being by far the most egregious example. And I warned you at the end of “Not with a Bang, but a Whimper?” that I might have more to say on the topic. This post is it.

Now, I’ve ranted about Democrat hypocrisy like this before. In fact, in that essay written back during Election 2000 (long before I started this blog) I essentially wrote a companion piece to “janekat’s” DU post, which – for my own amusement – I present part of in counterpoint to her comments:

Janekat:

What we MUST realize in order to win – Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I’m afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 – I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm.

Me:

An Uncomfortable Conclusion

With the continuing legal maneuvers in the Florida election debacle, I have been forced to a conclusion that I may have been unconsciously fending off. The Democratic party thinks we’re stupid. Not “amiable uncle Joe” stupid, but DANGEROUSLY stupid. Lead-by-the-hand-no-sharp-objects-don’t-put-that-in-your-mouth stupid. And they don’t think that just Republicans and independents are stupid, no no! They think ANYBODY not in the Democratic power elite is, by definition, a drooling idiot. A muttering moron. Pinheads barely capable of dressing ourselves.

Take, for example, the position under which the Gore election machine petitioned for a recount – that only supporters of the Democratic candidate for President lacked the skills necessary to vote properly, and that through a manual recount those erroneously marked ballots could be “properly” counted in Mr. Gore’s favor. They did this in open court and on national television, and with a straight face.

So, it is with some regret that I can no longer hold that uncomfortable conclusion at bay:

They’re right. We are.

It would appear that “janekat” has what it takes to be a member of the DNC elite. And she’s absolutely one of Thomas Sowell’s “Anointed.” I have not yet had a chance to read Mr. Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, but I have read the text of his speech on the subject, and it rings wholly true. This part of the speech particularly so:

Just as economic issues are often seen as being about “the rich” and “the poor,” various statistical disparities between social groups are often attributed to the moral failings of “society,” just as innumerable dangers that are allowed to exist show society’s blindness or callousness.

Whatever the issue, it tends to be seen within this framework — this vision of the anointed– and to take on the aura of a moral crusade. “Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature,” as Eric Hoffer put it. They cannot simply say that policy A is preferred to policy B for the following reasons and with the following evidence. To do that would be to lay their reasons and evidence alongside the reasons and evidence of those who disagree with them, so that others can weigh the one against the other. To argue in this way, on the same moral plane and under the same impartial rules of logic and evidence applying to both sides would be a violation of the whole vision in which the anointed see themselves. Their role is not to put themselves on the same plane as other people. The very words and phrases they use reveal the loftier plane on which they see themselves. From this loftier plane they are to raise our “consciousness,” make us “aware” and hope that we will “grow.” Those who nevertheless continue to disagree with them must then be shown to be not merely in error but in sin.

And let them without sin cast the first stones, as it were.

But here’s the question I have had, as succinctly put by Sowell:

How do the anointed manage to survive – and, indeed, flourish – after being wrong so often?

And he answers it:

Much as animals and plants survive in nature– by being in environments favorable to their strengths and not very severe on their weaknesses. The strengths of the anointed are verbal strengths and mental nimbleness, combined with whatever academic credentials may help sustain their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. There are environments in which that is sufficient and other environments in which that counts for virtually nothing. The anointed can be found concentrated in the former kinds of environments, rather than the latter, just as fish are found in the sea and not on mountaintops, just as it is just the reverse with eagles.

The academic world, for example, is a sort of natural habitat or wild-life refuge for ideas that cannot stand the test of empirical results– except for those fields in which there are decisive tests, such as science, mathematics, engineering, medicine– and athletics. In all these fields, in their differing ways, there comes a time when you must either put up or shut up. It should not be surprising that all of these fields are notable exceptions to the complete domination of the left on campuses across the country.

Where they are free to brainwash the young, some of whom become the primary and secondary educators of our children. And make no mistake – the world of the NEA is, too, a cloistered academic one where there is no decisive testing of empirical results. To the education system, how a child feels has become more important that what (s)he learns. Rand’s Comprachicos have spread greatly since the 50’s. They exist in politics as well – for “verbal strengths and mental nimbleness” are the hallmark of the successful politician, are they not? And how often do politicians actually debate “Policy A” vs. “Policy B” on the merits, rather than on the intent? Even in closed-door sessions away from the cameras? As the link above shows, the ranks of editorial cartoonists are rife with The Anointed as well, and they are but the most visible indicator of The Anointed dominating the media.

Nowhere has this jarring disconnect from reality in favor of lofty “higher ends” been more pronounced than with the gun control fight. That prominence has been due to, as Sowell put it, a lack of conclusive tests for empirical results. The fight over “Affirmative Action,” the fight over “Welfare reform,” the fight over taxes, all of those fights and more have not produced clear, unassailable empirical evidence of success or failure.

But “gun control” has. And presented with that evidence, the only thing The Anointed can respond with are reports like this one that states that the research in to whether gun control laws are or aren’t effective is inconclusive, and more research is needed. But here’s the incontrovertible, conclusive proof that, at least in part, “gun control” doesn’t make the public safer – concealed-carry. In every state where “shall-issue” concealed-carry legislation has been promoted, the gun control groups predict “blood in the streets,” “Dodge City shootouts,” carnage and mayhem and death, Oh My! And it never happens – anywhere. The “gun control” of keeping guns out of the hands of the law-abiding has been conclusively proven ineffective at making us safer.

Faced with that incontrivertible empirical evidence, the best argument The Anointed can come up with is that it can’t be conclusively proven that guns in the hands of the citizens make things safer, but what it demonstrates unquestionably is that more guns doesn’t equal more crime – yet they don’t abandon their mantra. Regardless of the empirical evidence they totally ignore the absence of the dire consequences they always predict, and in each new state the emotional argument is repeated, rather than debated on its merits as it should be. Again – “gun control” up to and including outright bans has not made England safer. They’ve simply disarmed the law-abiding, but pointing this out to The Anointed doesn’t phase them.

However, that is only an aside to the larger problem I discussed earlier. Gun control is my particular hobby-horse because, to me, it encompasses the most explicit and outrageous attack on individual liberty that The Anointed pursue – a deliberate, undisguised, and direct attack on the integrity of the Constitution of the United States. It is that document that stands in the way of their quest to give us what they feel we deserve – good and hard – and it is that document that we, the masses, are tasked to protect and defend.

Because if we don’t do it, no one will. Certainly not our elected officials without our torches and pitchforks behind ’em.

My earlier piece “Not with a Bang…” decried what I saw as a defeatist attitude among more than just the two examples I gave. The question I asked there may have been answered: Have we reached a “critical mass” where The Anointed have sway over enough of the population to get them to yeild our rights for The Anointed’s “higher purpose”? After the California recall election, the answer appears to be “not quite yet.” California – that bastion of the liberal Anointed (and make no mistake, there is a small conservative Anointed as well – and to the horror of both,) elected a man considered to be wholly unsuitable to be Governor of the 7th largest economy in the world. A man who was not one of The Anointed. A man who may not be controlled by The Anointed (but seeing as he married into one of the Brahmin families of the Anointed, that remains to be seen.) Worse, a man popular with the hoi polloi – which, in a democracy gives him power that The Anointed seldom receive. Worse still, the recall election demonstrates that the electorate can still be motivated to turn out in volume – and that cannot be good for The Anointed who see them as “not very bright” – ignorant, easily lead rubes who are the willingly-manipulated pawns of the forces of sinful self-interest.

Still, it’s not all good news. As the joke goes “I want to vote for the best candidate, but he never runs!” – and the system is set up to ensure that he doesn’t. If the recall election proves nothing else, it shows that the entrenched powers will stop at nothing short of actual assassination to retain power, so if you want to run for office it indicates something other than a desire simply to do a good job. I’ve said for quite a while that anyone actually willing to run for office ought to be immediately disqualified. Arnold’s election proves, actually it only reaffirms, that popular recognition is the only way to elected office other than through the political party machinery, and John and Jane Q. Citizen don’t have a chance of running through those machines without coming out mangled beyond recognition.

(Let me say that I hope Arnold does a good job as Governor, but I will not be surprised if he is thwarted at every turn by his legislature, or if he turns out like Jesse Ventura to be not up to the job on philosophical grounds.)

Here’s the situation as I see it:

The The Anointed control the halls of higher education with the possible exception of the schools of engineering and the hard sciences (which are populated more and more by foreign students rather than domestic ones, as our population produces fewer and fewer students willing and capable of competing.) The Anointed have a firm grip on primary and secondary education in this country, and are only threatened by home-schooling (not an option for most families) and school vouchers (which they oppose vehemently.) Controlling these is actually more important than controlling higher education – it’s easier to indoctrinate the young before they learn to think, as Ayn Rand explained so graphically in “The Comprachicos,” or as illustrated in the present by this post. At any rate, both home-schooling and vouchers are, I think, too little, too late.

The Anointed occupy positions of power in the media, and are less and less concerned about the obvious exercise of that power in attempting to influence the “people of average or lower intelligence.” Even when the manipulation fails as it did in California, there is no hue and cry over it. Yes, the conservatives have talk radio, and conservative print media exists, and Fox News for TV, but overwhelmingly the Anointed run the newsrooms in TV and print. Listening recently to the Hugh Hewitt radio show a caller commented that, during the news breaks on his local station, the news being reported was in diametric opposition to what what Hewitt was reporting. Reuters and the AP represent the news-reporting bodies of most small radio outlets. As more and more children process through the school system and have children of their own, the less likely they are to understand, less be swayed by, the relatively minor influence of conservative media that preaches pretty much only to the faithful.

The Anointed occupy seats in the legislatures and benches of the judiciary, though not yet in numbers large enough to completely control policy. While there they are active in the pursuit of increasing their numbers, however, and thwarting attempts to increase the number of conservatives – see the Democrat opposition to judicial nominees who “believe in anything.” Possibly the most blatant example after that is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – also of California – of whom fellow blogger Phelps recently wrote:

The discouragment comes from realising that I have no expectation of the application of law from the 9th circuit. None. The 9th is so activist, so interventionist, and so partisain(sic) that it is a mockery of what the Judicial branch is supposed to represent. They are supposed to be the brake on the engine of government. Instead, the 9th has ventured so far into judicial activism that they are not slowing the engine, but instead speeding it along.

He is not alone in that assessment.

I have written that liberals and conservatives are both necessary to the proper functioning of a healthy society, and I truly believe that. But there’s a caveat: The liberals have to play by the same rules. They cannot abandon logic and reason for “higher purposes” and “greater callings.” They must recognize that their reality has to be the same one the rest of us live in, and right now that doesn’t appear to be the case. Bill Whittle, for instance, longs for the day when the Democrats return to “the party claimed by Jefferson and Truman, and many millions of other decent, patriotic Americans, people of integrity with whom it is a pleasure – sometimes an honor – to disagree.” They certainly aren’t that today, and to be honest, neither is the Republican party. In the world of politics, things have gotten to the point illustrated in this Sacramento Bee article:

“What is a little disconcerting for the French is an American president who seems to be principled,” said Jean Duchesne, an English literature professor at Condorcet College in Paris. “The idea that politics should be based on principles is unimaginable because principles lead to ideology, and ideology is dangerous.”

But we who are politically engaged are all ideologues. The difference is in our ideologies. Maximum freedom for the individual, or maximum conformance to the ideals of the Anointed?

I’ve also written that I believe we sit at a crossroads in history – where, through the easy availability of disparate opinion and vast amounts of information, we can, as a minority, influence our political futures far beyond our mere numbers. Besides the resignation I illustrated in “Not With a Bang…”, there is a great deal of frustrated anger out there in the Jacksonian community, and the internet lets the frustrated communicate – and organize – in ways never before possible. Again, the gun control issue is foremost in this, as the gun control Anointed have commented at length on our ability to quickly and effectively organize and resist their efforts. Perhaps Missouri’s concealed-carry legislation, over a decade in the making and requiring the overturning of a governor’s veto, best exemplifies this. However, I don’t think this window of opportunity is going to be open long. We must seize it, soon, or resign ourselves to one of two uncomfortable futures: Losing with a whimper, or eventually being forced to take arms and risk losing with a bang.

Discussion of this would also be appreciated, because I’m pretty much out of ideas.

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.

More Propaganda

KevinLeave a comment

Today’s editorial (originally printed Saturday, 10/4) comes from the Washington Post, and is entitled

To Quell the Killings

Bear in mind while you read this that “Quell” is defined:

to thoroughly overwhelm and reduce to submission or passivity (quell a riot)

That’s not what they’re talking about here.

But what a nifty title, eh?

MARYLANDERS HAVE long recognized how outlandish it is to allow the marketing of military assault-style weapons that have no place in any civilized state.

Unless they’re in the hands of government employees, of course.

A decade ago Maryland banned the sale or transfer of a number of assault-style pistols; but even with a federal ban on the manufacture of 19 different models of assault weapons, creative copies of these high-powered firearms keep flooding the street markets that cater to violent criminals.

Really? Then the Violence Policy Center’s report indicating that Bushmaster sold 150,589 semi-automatic rifles in the period between 1994 and 2000 means that every single one of them went to “violent criminals?” That’s odd. The lower receiver of my AR (the part that’s legally a “gun”) is a Bushmaster, and last I checked, I don’t have so much as a speeding ticket on my record. But all those guns were “flooding the street” eh? What about the 18,211 made by DPMS? Or the 32,504 made by Armalite? And those are just the domestically manufactured versions of the AR-15 type rifle. That doesn’t include the imported AK variants.

Right, the only people who want to buy “assault rifles” are violent criminals. Sure.

The federal ban is set to expire in 11 months unless Congress acts, and some Maryland leaders — including two top Democrats who may run against each other for their party’s nomination for governor — are united in support of a state bill to outlaw the sale or transfer of 45 models of assault-style rifles and shotguns. Their shared concern: If Congress caves in to the all-guns-are-great lobbyists and lets the limited federal protections die, Maryland ought to have an even better ban on its books. One of the weapons that would be banned, a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, was used in the sniper attacks in this region a year ago.

An “even better ban” that won’t do what it’s purported to do – keep “assault weapons” out of the hands of the violent criminals. Let’s look (again) at Muhammed and Malvo.

Point 1: The rifle they used was a post-ban AR – one of the hundreds of thousands already in circulation (and this is what the gun grabbers banners are protesting). Yet these guns (and the tens of thousands of pre-ban rifles) will still be out there – unless, of course, the next step is confiscation.

Point 2: Muhammed and Malvo have already stated that they stole the rifle from a gun shop in Washington state, so a ban in Maryland wouldn’t have any effect on the “availability” of the gun, would it?

Point 3: Muhammed and Malvo fired one shot at each of their victims, so the type of firearm involved was immaterial. Had they used a deer rifle chambered in a cartridge such as the 7mm Remington Magnum, then it is likely there wouldn’t have been a single survivor, and they could have made their shots from a considerably greater distance. I guess those “long range sniper rifles” are next on the list, right?

But they keep milking the fact that an “assault rifle” was the weapon used.

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley have good political as well as safety reasons for backing a more inclusive ban.

No, they just have a political reason. Safety doesn’t enter into the issue.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. voted as a member of Congress to overturn the federal ban on assault weapons; he prefers to echo the National Rifle Association position that stiffer sentences for gun crimes are a more effective approach. That may scare some criminals, even if it does nothing to lower the number of suicides or accidental deaths of children. But what is so essential about these weapons?

And what does “suicides and accidental deaths of children” have to do with an assault weapon ban? Or are we just supposed to ignore this non sequitur?

The 1994 federal ban should be extended, not ended.

Although it was illustrated at the beginning of the editorial that it was, essentially, useless.

The 19 weapons covered are listed by name, and the provisions include a ban on “copies” or “duplicates.” But state Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery) and Del. Neil F. Quinter (D-Howard) fear that the federal ban may not be renewed, never mind improved. Federal uniform protection would be best, but in the meantime states are and should be enacting measures of their own. As of August 2002, seven states had some form of assault weapon ban: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Yes, and it’s worked so well in those states, hasn’t it? Kept them out of the hands of the law-abiding, gotten some people who were otherwise law abiding to break a new law, and done nothing to make anybody safer. And now, at least, California’s ban is being challenged at the Supreme Court level. (We’ll see if the Court deigns to actually hear the case.)

It isn’t as if sportsmen would be denied their firearms. The federal law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns currently being manufactured. Isn’t that ample?

First: The Second Amendment isn’t about “sport.”

Second: If you can ban one type of weapon on appearance or function, you can ban more, or all. It’s called “the slippery slope” for a reason. The law protects 670 weapons now – that could change tomorrow.

Third: Sportsmen actually do use these weapons. The AR-15 is the rifle of choice for National Match competition, and makes a damned fine varmit rifle in some configurations. But who cares about that? They’re eeeevil black rifles!

The weapons prohibited are those with multiple assault-weapon features such as a protruding pistol grip or grenade launcher or designs for spray-firing from the hip as fast as a shooter can keep pulling the trigger.

What? No mention of the bayonet lugs? The original ban made those illegal. Or the folding or collapsable stocks – what about those? I thought those defined an “assault weapon.” Now it’s the pistol grip and grenade launchers? We have a problem with criminals launching grenades now?

Little wonder, then, that law enforcement officials — those who work to protect people from sniper fire or armed criminals — support proposals to do away with assault-style weapons.

Except, of course, for the ones THEY have. You know, the ones that are often fully automatic and equipped with collapsable stocks.

How effective can homeland security measures be in a country awash with some of the most efficient firearms sought by international as well as domestic terrorists?

Right. Terrorists who can rent Ryder trucks and fill them with ANFO. Terrorists who can smuggle the full-auto versions of the AK into the country. Terrorists who will have no problem getting any weapon they want because they don’t care about the law.

Can they get any more wound up without becoming hysterical?

Once again, I’m reminded of the VPC’s comment about the “assault weapon” issue, because (remember the title of the op-ed? To Quell the Killings?) “assault weapons” aren’t the problem the VPC sees. The VPC believes that handguns should be banned (and confiscated) because they are used in the overwhelming majority of killings in this country. But the effort to accomplish this has fallen flat. So the Violence Policy Center has latched onto the “assault weapon” frenzy for purely pragmatic reasons:

It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an “old” debate.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an “unsolvable” problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. (Most emphasis mine, but the emphasis on “a new topic” was theirs)

Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA’s image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer. (The “divide and conquer” strategy.)

Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns, many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual’s right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and “plastic” firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it’s worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

For the VPC, the ends (gun bans) justify the means (fearmongering, distortion, and outright lying.) We “mistakenly believe” the Second Amendment means what it says. We are supposed to believe that “plastic firearms” that can get through a metal detector actually exist. And – taking advantage of the poor ignorant public they so urgently want to protect from itself – they want to take advantage of the mistaken assumption that “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” (See The Lying News Media piece for an illustration of this tactic. Don’t even bother to try to convince me that it was “an honest misunderstanding.”)

Seems the Washington Post and a lot of politicians and other newspapers see it that way too.

Propaganda

KevinLeave a comment

noun: Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause

Yes, I’m aware that it’s done on both sides of this issue, but some of it is so blatant and amateurish it really shocks me that they do it. Take for example this October 2002 press release from Commonsense about Kids and Guns (it’s a Word file):

Kennedy: Still Too Many Preventable Gun Accidents and Suicides

New Data Shows 58% Increase in Accidental Shootings of Small Children

Washington, DC — Gun accidents and suicides took the lives of 1,200 children and teens**, plus an additional 18,358 kids 0-19 years-old were injured by a firearm and 1,776 were killed in homicides, according to new mortality and injury data released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the year 2000.

These findings were reported by Victoria Reggie Kennedy, president of the nonpartisan group Common Sense about Kids and Guns, on the three-year anniversary of the group’s founding.

“The reality is that many of these accidents, suicides, and injuries were preventable, if only the firearm in question had been properly stored: unloaded and locked,” stated Kennedy, quoting two of the six safety tips of her non-profit group.

“Common Sense about Kids and Guns is encouraged that overall rates of gun deaths have declined for the sixth straight year,” said Kennedy. “We applaud the responsible adults who followed our Common Sense Safety Tips and assured that no child or teen encountered a loaded or improperly stored firearm in their home.”

“But there is still more that needs to be done: among 0-4 year olds, accidental shootings actually increased a startling 58%!” declared Kennedy. “This is simply tragic. We must take personal responsibility to make certain guns are inaccessible to these very young children.”

“Without any exaggeration, the way a gun is stored can be a matter of life and death for our children,” Kennedy said. “Studies show that approximately 75% of all firearm-related accidents and suicides involving children and teens, and many homicides, are committed with a firearm found at home, or the home of a relative or friend.”

At the heart of the Common Sense about Kids and Guns message is parental responsibility. “A responsible adult cannot rely on a child or teenager not to touch a gun, merely because they have been told not to do so,” continued Kennedy. “It is impossible to predict what children, teenagers, and their friends will do, and the risks of mishandling a gun are too great to place the burden of responsibility on anyone other the adult bringing the gun into the home.”

Common Sense about Kids and Guns has developed six simple safety tips that have been endorsed by organizations from the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to the National Shooting Sport Foundation to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Whether or not someone decides to keep a gun
at home, Common Sense urges all adults to follow these steps to protect kids from gun deaths and injuries:

All gun owners must:
1) unload and lock up their guns;
2) lock and store ammunition separately; and
3) keep keys and combinations where kids are unable to find them.
All parents must:
4) ask if guns are safely stored at places their kids visit or play;
5) talk with their kids about guns; and
6) teach young children not to touch guns and to tell an adult if they find one.

“There are still many complex issues that lead to gun violence in our society – issues that we must address in a serious way,” concluded Kennedy. “But right now, if adults act responsibly and follow these six simple steps, we can continue to reduce the number of tragedies involving kids and guns. And remember, the child you save may be your own.”

Now, I don’t have a lot of problems with this piece.* The facts are actually factual, and the suggestions recommendations demands listed at the bottom aren’t really out of line (except I’ll decide whether to keep a firearm loaded in my house. It’s my responsibilty to make sure that the kids in my house don’t have access to one.) But let’s look at the part I highlighted, the 58% increase!

Damn if that’s not a scary number!

It’s propaganda – see definition above.

It is, indeed, factual. If you look at the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS tools it will tell you that in 2000 there were nineteen (19) children between the ages of 0 and 4 who died by unintentional gunshot, and that was indeed a 58% increase over 1999’s twelve (12).

But I somehow doubt that Commonsense reported on the 37% decrease between 1998 and 1999, when the number went from NINETEEN to twelve. Or the 50% decrease between 1994 and 1996 when the number went from thirty-four (34!) to seventeen (17).

The fact is that over the period between 1995 and 2000 the average has hovered about 20 per year.

Yes, that’s too many. Yes it’s tragic. Yes, it’s almost entirely due to irresponsible parents who left guns where someone (not always a toddler) could get to them.

But how about some perspective?

What about the 46 children from 0 to 4 years old who died by accidental poisoning in 2000?

Or the 44 who died in falls?

Or the 568 who drowned?

Where are the people urging legislation to stop these deaths due to irresponsible parents?

NOTE: The organization Commonsense about Kids and Guns is not a lobbying body. It restricts itself to “advocat(ing) personal action, rather than government action, in ending gun deaths” as commenter Mays succinctly put it. At least I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.

It was not my intention to suggest that Commonsense was another Violence Policy Center or Brady Campaign, but on reflection it certainly could appear that way (and understandably, given my obvious, stated bias), and I apologize if it was so interpreted. (But this does point out the difference between intentionally misleading someone and accidentally doing so.)

*I take issue with the idea that teen suicides would be affected, but that’s another topic.

**See this piece for commentary on the combining of accident and suicide statistics to ensure scary numbers.

More Wonderful News from Australia

KevinLeave a comment

For a people descended largely from convicts, you’d think they’d have more testicular fortitude, but apparently not.

Nor do they seem to have much in the way of logical faculties, if this story is anything to go by. (Nod to Keepandbeararms.com again.)

Gun buyback underway

“Buyback.” Right. As though the guns were bought from the government, and now they’re simply “buying them back.”

A NATIONAL gun buyback scheme and firearms amnesty aimed at curbing the illegal guns trade began in NSW today, Police Minister John Watkins said.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but England BANNED ALL handguns and it hasn’t “curb(ed) the illegal guns trade” there, has it? In fact, the “illegal guns trade” in England is a BOOMING BUSINESS, isn’t it?

Isn’t one definition of insanity “Repeating the same behavior while expecting a different outcome?”

The buyback is part of a national plan to outlaw a range of handguns, with the initiative already underway in the majority of states amd territories.

The firearms amnesty applies to unlicensed owners and/or unregistered guns of any type but will not result in payment to the gun owner.

So, let’s see if I understand this: If you own a licensed gun (and are thus a law-abiding gun owner) you’ll get reimbursed for your property. But if you’re an illegal gun owner, and possess unregistered firearms, well, if you turn them in you’ll get the heartwarming feeling that you’ve done your civic duty, but no money?

And this will disarm who exactly?

I though so.

If it’s that blindingly obvious to me, why are they going along?

The buyback and amnesty were part of a scheme put forward by Prime Minister John Howard and accepted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) last year.

Finally! The word “scheme” used appropriately!

Mr Watkins said NSW would use three vans – similar to RBT vans – to visit gun clubs and dealers across the state to collect newly prohibited guns under the National Buyback program.

Licensed owners who turn their handguns and accessories over to police will receive a cheque on the spot – based on a national price list,” he said in a statement.

He said the buyback and the amnesty would both run until March 31, 2004.

Mr Watkins said two previous amnesties and a buyback, held since 1995, had resulted in the surrender of 207,215 firearms in NSW.

The programs would bolster the NSW Government’s plan, announced last week, to address the illegal guns trade.

“Obviously, criminals are not going to take any notice of the buyback or amnesty,” Mr Watkins said.

“But these programs should reduce the total number of firearms in the community.

There it is: It isn’t the criminals that are the problem, it’s the number of guns. And the only way to address the number of guns? TAKE THEM FROM THE LAW ABIDING. Thank you Mr. Watkins for stating what gun banners control advocates here will not say (with the exception of the Violence Policy Center and a few outspoken individuals.) The ONLY “gun control” that CAN “work” is gun CONFISCATION – but it DOESN’T work because you CANNOT DISARM THE CRIMINALS. The most you can do is disarm the victims. And that works so well everywhere it’s tried, doesn’t it?

And the other thing this illustrates? Registration is only good for confiscation. You can only be sure you get the guns that are REGISTERED. The ones outside the registry? Who knows?

“And our illegal guns policing package … will hit back at the dangerous criminals who dare to carry firearms on our streets,” he said.

Hey, I’m all for that! Find ’em, jail ’em.

Oh, wait. “Dangerous criminals” like the guy in the story below? Nevermind.

South Australia’s handguns buyback also begins today.

Again: What it will do is disarm the law-abiding. It will do NOTHING to disarm THE CRIMINALS. And it will turn a LOT of formerly law-abiding citizens INTO criminals.

For government, that’s a win-win situation, isn’t it?

Oh Yeah, Licensing and Registration is a GREAT Idea!

KevinLeave a comment

Just look at how well it’s working in Canada!

This report (link might be temporary) explains that the gun-owner database that was supposed to “keep guns out of the wrong hands” is, like the rest of the system, a disaster:

Ottawa report blasts gun registry

Unreliable data threaten key screening goal of program

OTTAWA – An internal Justice Department report on the firearms program cites major weaknesses in the ability of the gun registry to provide crucial information to firearms officers and police.

The report says one of the chief goals of the program — continual screening to make sure gun owners remain eligible for licences — is threatened by unreliable information contained in a massive database that is supposed to tip police and the Canada Firearms Centre to individuals who should not own firearms.

The report, dated last April, also says RCMP concern about privacy rights is delaying or preventing access by firearms officers to information they need to judge whether a person should be issued gun licences.

Privacy rights? What right to privacy do peons have?

As well, firearms officers told Justice officials who prepared the report they were concerned about delays receiving copies of court prohibition orders that could prevent individuals from acquiring firearms or force them to surrender them.

Furthermore, police officials expressed concern about the length of time it can take to obtain information from the registry on all the firearms that may be registered to a gun owner at a specific address. Each individual serial number must be searched on the registry.

The report, obtained by Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz through the Access to Information Act, also pinpointed major failures in the original design of the program which led to the explosion in costs Auditor General Sheila Fraser outlined in a scathing report last year.

Garry Breitkreuz has been a vocal and active opponent of C.68 since inception, and has fought implementation of the registry probably harder than any MP. He also predicted that it would run way over budget – and was right.

The report was prepared by the Justice Department’s evaluation division, which conducted a review of the firearms program covering the period from 1995, when Parliament passed the Firearms Act, to September 2002, three months before Fraser released her report.

The Justice Department report contains further detail about aspects of the program which Fraser also questioned.

It says police agencies do not follow consistent procedures when entering information in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database, an RCMP computer information record which contains files on four million individuals for the purpose of gun licence screening. Local police forces contribute about 75 per cent of the information in the database.

Thus reinforcing the objection that implementation of licensing and registration draws on police resources thus further reducing their ability to do their primary job – protecting the citizens. And that time isn’t free either.

The report notes the database is a major component of the firearms program’s ability to ensure licence eligibility of gun owners is reviewed continuously — one of the main arguments the government has used to argue the Firearms Act will do more for public safety than the previous licensing system.

Except it’s run like pretty much every other government database – poorly. Nor is it secure (there’s that privacy issue again.)

“There appear to be several issues that threaten the effectiveness of FIP,” the report says, explaining some police agencies enter information that is irrelevant to gun ownership, files are duplicated whenever a FIP file is modified and information on individuals in the database is often vague. For example, the report said surnames are often entered only with the initial of the person’s first name.

Police, however, say they have more time for front line work now that the firearms centre has taken over responsibility for screening would-be gun owners.

The report said key personnel interviewed for the evaluation, including Canada Firearms Centre officials, were “nearly unanimous” that the centre’s structure was poorly designed at the outset, with separate policy and operations branches that reported to an assistant deputy minister who had duties in other areas within the Justice Department.

As well, the department initially had a “consensus approach” to management which attempted to accommodate too many divergent views and interests.

“The search for consensus had a cascading effect on the entire implementation of the Canadian Firearms Program,” the report says. “At least in hindsight, the initial implementation timelines and the ambiguous net estimate of $85 million to implement the (Canadian Firearms Registration System) were quite unrealistic and damaged the credibility of the program,” the report says.

So, you’re saying it was just another government bureaucracy?

“The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.” — Eugene McCarthy

Firearms centre spokesman David Austin noted that the report was delivered following changes to the program the government had initiated earlier in response to Fraser’s report.

Jebus, where have I heard that before. “Oh, yes, we had those problems, but they’re fixed now!”

Breitkreuz predicted it will cost the government millions to fix the weaknesses outlined in the Justice Department report.

The latest flaws in the registry followed last week’s revelation that it has been a dismal failure at tracking stolen guns over the last five years, matching only 4,438 firearms with descriptions of more than 100,000 stolen weapons the firearms centre attempted to trace.

All the stolen guns which were located had been registered under the Firearms Act, according to RCMP records obtained by Breitkreuz. The owners apparently acquired them without knowledge they were stolen.

The records also revealed that serial numbers for 250,305 firearms logged in the registry matched the serial numbers of the 101,835 guns police reported stolen since 1998.

Why, why, WHY do gun control proponents think licensing and registration will work here?

Because of the duplication of serial numbers, a weakness of the gun-making industry years ago, all the stolen rifles and shotguns that were traced had to be found through manual comparisons of other features, such as the manufacturer’s name, model and brand.

It is estimated that setting up the gun registry will carry a price tag approaching $1 billion.

I’ve got news for you: EXCEEDING $1 billion. Even in Canadian dollars, that’s a lot of dough to flush down a rathole.

How do they WRITE this Stuff With a Straight Face?

KevinLeave a comment

(From the Cincinnati Enquirer)

How many more Javontays must die?

Two school buses let children out in front of an apartment building on Linn Street. Across the street, in front of a dwelling bearing burglar bars and an electronic door gate, the bereft mother of a slain 7-year-old keened.

Javonna Williams’ eyes were dry. But her tears flowed through the words she shouted to the street, to no one in particular.

“They don’t know what they’ve done,” she said. “I was there. I saw his pain. He was in pain.”

Little Javontay died Monday night, police said, after a child playing with a gun in a Mount Airy townhouse shot him in the chest.

It was an accident, police believe, but it’s hard to piece together the facts.

People aren’t telling police everything, including who owned several guns police found at the apartment.

What is clear is a neighborhood is missing one friendly little boy who used to ride his bike and build imaginary forts in a store parking lot next to his home.

Kevin Milline, who owns the grocery store, said Javontay’s mother wouldn’t let him or his 3-year-old sister play in a neighborhood tot lot a block away, because drug dealers had taken it over.

“It’s too dangerous,” Milline said.

Javontay’s West End neighborhood has drug problems, as does the neighborhood he visited in Mount Airy. There have been shootings and assaults in both in recent months.

But carelessness, not drugs, killed Javontay. Some adult let kids find the guns.

How do we as a community reduce the chances of that happening again?

Gee, I don’t know. How about cracking down on the drug dealers? Or, sparing that, how about ending the “War on (some) Drugs” and taking the profitability out of the trade?

Our children are over-exposed to guns – even in low-crime neighborhoods. It is estimated that 40 percent of American households have firearms in them; 30 percent of those guns are unlocked and loaded, according to Common Sense About Kids And Guns, a national group.

A statistic that:

A) Ignores the fact that the percentage of American households with firearms in them hasn’t changed significantly for over fifty years (except, possibly to go down,) and

B) The total number of accidental deaths by firearm (not just rate per 100,000 population) has been declining ever since we started keeping records.

This is part of the “more guns equals more death” meme.

Nationally, 1,200 kids and teens die from gun accidents and suicides annually. Another 18,000 or more are injured.

As I’ve illustrated before, removing a method does not affect overall suicide rates. Australia has suffered a dramatic increase in teen suicide in the last few years. Method? Asphyxiation.

Here’s the facts on accidental firearm death for “kids and teens” up through 17 year-olds:

Year Deaths

2000 150
1999 158
1998 207
1997 247
1996 272
1995 330
1994 403

Shall I go on? And remember, during that time the number of guns in private hands has increased by over three million per year – about a third of which were handguns.

WE ARE “DOING SOMETHING.”

The problem is, the gun banners control forces define “DOING SOMETHING” as “passing new gun control laws.” Nothing else qualifies.

You won’t hear them talk about the dramatic decrease in accidental deaths. Instead, they will attach suicides to the total in order to keep the numbers as high (and emotion-grabbing) as possible.

Javontay’s case is unusual because he died in an inner-city neighborhood, said Dr. Rebeccah Brown, a pediatric surgeon and assistant director for the trauma unit at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“I don’t think of (accidental shootings) as being an inner-city problem. Usually it’s kids whose dads are hunters and who find the gun.”

Sweet freaking Jebus. No, Doctor, you don’t think of accidental shootings as being an inner-city problem because you’re overwhelmed by deliberate shootings. Accidental shootings – especially of small children – are quite rare everywhere.

In 10 years, Children’s has treated 127 gunshot wounds in children; most between the ages of 10 and 14.

And how many of them were deliberately inflicted as in, say, drive-bys? (Or are they going to redefine getting hit in a drive-by as an “accident?”)

“Chances are your children have been somewhere or played somewhere where there’s a firearm,” said Tracy Cook, executive director of ProKids, which helps abused kids.

The usual precautionary warnings – don’t mix kids with guns; lock up your weapon; keep ammunition separate – still apply, even with stolen guns, she said.

“Just because you purchase a gun illegally doesn’t mean you can’t put a lock on it. Who wants a kid to die?”

No one wanted Javontay to die.

Through family members, Javonna Williams declined to be interviewed for this column. As neighbors and relatives encircled her, she rocked back and forth.

If those who know something about this accident could only see her pain, I bet they’d give police the information they seek about the guns police found in the apartment Javontay visited.

And if the rest of us are realistic about the chances for more accidental shootings – we’d do whatever it takes to keep kids away from guns.

This is the mentality. Just pass another law. The people willing to steal or acquire a gun illegally will follow that one!

I am not often dumbstruck by the mental processes of the gun grabbers controllers, but this one floored me. I cannot fathom the “logic” here.

(Update: Kevin McGehee advises: “Don’t try to comprehend the logic of gun grabbers controllers. It’s like mud wrestling with a pig — you only wind up getting dirty, and the pig likes it.” I can’t help myself, Kevin. I’m an engineer – I’m unable to believe that some people are incapable of logic.)

The Power to Tax = The Power to Destroy

KevinLeave a comment

From Keepandbeararms.com comes the link to this story:

Feeling salty over pepper spray

Getting pepper spray in Massachusetts has never been easy. New fees make it even harder. Will local legislators help make the Bay State the ‘spray state?’

In theory, buying a can of pepper spray isn’t really all that hard. In most parts of the country, getting hold of such self-defense sprays poses little challenge for citizens of legal age with $20 in their pocket and a desire to temporarily incapacitate any shady character that comes too close.

Having a relatively speedy Internet connection helps, too.

By just typing the words “pepper spray” into any Internet search engine, dozens of self-defense-related Web sites immediately appear, all of which offer customers the chance to buy personal protection sprays in any number of shapes and sizes.

“It stops your attacker … it hurts them,” promises one such Web site that not only sells pepper spray in the standard aerosol cans, but also caters to customers who prefer to remain incognito. Pepper spray containers in the form of pens, lipstick cases, cell phones and pagers are also readily available to those looking to fend off foes.

“It will slam their eyes shut for 10 minutes while you safely get away,” the Web site continues. “Hours later, you’re safe, and they are left miserable and humiliated.”

Sound unpleasant? You bet. But as the Web site explains, people have a right to protect and defend themselves. Seeing as how pepper spray remains one of the few non-lethal and relatively inexpensive means of self-defense on the market, it’s availability to customers is a no brainer.

Unless, of course, you live in Massachusetts.

Here, carrying even a miniscule vial of aerosol self-defense spray without acquiring it through the proper channels may be considered criminally consistent with smuggling fireworks across the New Hampshire border or illegally downloading music onto computers. Get it, but whatever you do, don’t let anyone catch you with it.

It’s been that way since 1998, when state legislators passed the Gun Control Act, otherwise known as Chapter 180, and made it impossible for anyone in Massachusetts to own a weapon without first being approved for a Firearms Identification Card. Living in a post-Columbine world where serious questions are continually raised about gun ownership, legislators wasted no time in passing Chapter 180.

Still, there are those who feel the law is imperfect – for starters, the fact it required anyone who wanted to buy pepper spray for protection to acquire an FID card. And cough up the $25 fee that went with it.

Earlier this year, with the state in financial turmoil and Gov. Mitt Romney using all kinds of stopgap solutions to try to solve the budget crunch, the FID card registration fee quadrupled to $100. The move not only made it that much harder for anyone in Massachusetts to buy pepper spray, it also fueled a growing sentiment among Bay Staters and North Shore residents that people looking only to protect themselves are instead being penalized.

They are people like Richard Griffith, who recently encouraged his fiancée to consider carrying pepper spray, only to discover that it could take up to 140 days for her to receive her FID Card, not to mention the hassle of being fingerprinted and undergoing a thorough background examination.

To Griffith, the recent fee increase coupled with the state’s already stringent laws regarding pepper spray simply makes little sense. He says it borders on ludicrous when a sea of red tape and prohibitive fees stymie people whose only interest is self-protection. In his eyes, it’s time Massachusetts eased up and made pepper spray more accessible

“I think there’s definitely an anti-self-defense component to all of this,” Griffith says. “I know the people that sponsored Chapter 180 were very well intentioned, but the legislation really seems slapped together.

“I can’t really criticize legislators for wanting to be proactive and wanting to prevent tragedies from occurring, but sometimes I think they do things that are foolish,” he adds. “This is one of them.”

There are signs, however, that some legislators are looking to atone for their officious deeds. State Rep. Bradley Jones, who represents part of Lynnfield, has sponsored a bill that could free pepper spray seekers from having any responsibility to pay exorbitant amounts for an FID card. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but Jones believes it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

“I just don’t think it’s necessary (to have these fees), says Jones. “We’re just making it that much more difficult for people. These are non-lethal weapons we’re talking about. They’re just ways for people to protect themselves in a difficult situation.

“I think he need to recognize that instances of physical aggression and sexual violence is far too prevalent,” Jones adds. “Pepper spray is one way for victims to be able to protect themselves.”

(All emphasis mine.)

There’s much more. Here are some appropriate quotes:

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. – Louis D. Brandeis

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. – Louis D. Brandeis

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.” – Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598), Japanese Shogun

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty –so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator– and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Beccaria

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

“The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.” – former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. — Frank Herbert

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait forever. — Lord Thomas MacaulaySorry, but that’s my way of ranting. Or one of them, at least.