Weekly Gun News – Edition 17

I missed last week, due to being too busy. You might think these kinds of all linky-no-thinky posts are easier to put together, but not really. They take longer than two thought out posts. The hard part is going through everything and figuring out what stuff is still good and relevant, and then copying and pasting all the articles, spread across three different devices. That’s why I sometimes get links wrong. But here’s a try:

Dave Kopel has some commentary on the recent 2nd Circuit decision upholding the SAFE Act.

Steven Halbrook is probably the leading effort on German gun control and its effect on the holocaust. He writes about it at Investors Business Daily.

The big news, though only tangentially gun related, is that Joe Biden decided not to run. This will clear the way for Hillary Clinton, who is making gun control the centerpiece of her campaign. I think this is a good thing, because I believe Biden would have been a much stronger candidate.

BTW, polls don’t look good for Hillary’s tactic of making gun control a central campaign issue. This might be why her campaign was trying to walk back her comments about Australian style confiscation was something that “would be worth considering doing on the national level”

Democrats in Wisconsin are running on gun control too.

Must read: “The Legal History of ‘Dangerous or Unusual Weapons’

It was reported that gun control groups were forging an alliance with Black Lives Matter, but one of their leaders said the article was clickbait. Take a look at these people. I’ve seen more racial diversity at an NRA convention.

Reason notes some statistical trickery used by the other side. The big thing is cherry picking data, and controlling for other factors assumed to contribute to violent crime, like urbanization. You can choose what you control for to get the outcome you want.

It looks like distrusting the government has become a thing. Can’t imagine why.

Someone managed to slip a win past the PLCAA. It’s not impossible to do, since dealers can still be sued for negligent entrustment and negligence per se. The Bradys celebrate the win, but it wasn’t theirs. They withdrew from the case after pissing off the judge, if you recall.

Salon is really about as much of a sewer as Twitter often is these days, so it’s not too surprising to see them publish an article which advocates anyone buying a gun to have to be shot first.

Here we go with the smart gun crap again. I’m fine with the idea, as long as it wins in the marketplace and not through government mandates. The problem is, as soon as it’s viable, it will be mandated.

Comment of the week: “Looks as if she should try to infiltrate Jenny Craig.” If you know what lawmaker that comment is about without looking, congrats, you’re as awful a person as I am.

New York City is now using backscatter radar to spot concealed weapons. Yeah, this is probably not constitutional. But I don’t see why they won’t use it, and then claim the pretext for the stop was they noticed a bulge, rather than using an experimental technology.

Poe’s Law says that any sufficiently extreme viewpoint is indistinguishable from parody. This might be such a case.

Campus Carry ended in California. I’m sure this will deter mass shooters.

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Same to this guy too.

Unintended consequences of banning private transfers.

Gun control has more racial disparities than the drug war. Both have been just about as successful too.

Rare takes on that awful SNL skit about guns.

This is a long read, but it’s more evidence that mass shootings are driven by publicity and infamy of the shooters.

5 Responses to “Weekly Gun News – Edition 17”

  1. TS says:

    Re: Smart Guns
    The whole article was about preventing youth suicide. These people don’t put much thought into their arguments. I can’t see how smart guns could have much of an impact in this area. Is the author suggesting that teenagers should not be authorized users on the family smart gun such that they can’t even shoot the gun under supervision? Even current technology is just a combination on a stupid wristband. It doesn’t offer anymore protecting from keeping kids away from guns than a combination lock- and actually even less so since the owner has to continually punch the code in at the range offering more opportunities for spying eyes to catch the code. So it would still come down to the exact same thing as it does today without smart guns. Do the parents trust their kids to give them access to guns, or not?

  2. Aaron says:

    You missed Texas voting on the Constitutional amendment to protect hunters’ rights. :) Early voting has already begun.

  3. Archer says:

    The SAFE Act finding in the 2nd Circuit runs afoul enough of SCOTUS’ prior rulings that an appeal should be pretty easy … if SCOTUS chooses to hear an appeal (big ‘if’). The argument that semi-automatic rifles in common use can nonetheless be banned for essentially the same reasons that handguns CANNOT be banned, is ludicrous.

    And I still think Biden will run, if Hillary’s campaign well and truly implodes before the primary clock runs out (another big ‘if’).

    On another note, is the DNC required to give their nod to the candidate that wins the primary elections? Or do they have the ability/authority to endorse whoever they want and winning primaries just gets a candidate on the ballot (possibly as a third party if the Democrat party doesn’t back them)?

  4. W B says:

    A friend of our cause just wrote a great summation of the issues:

  5. Alpheus says:

    The last story, about how each of us might have a filter that prevents us from doing some harmful thing unless X people are doing it…makes me wonder if that’s true for all people, or if there are some people whose filter is effectively infinite. I suspect that it is the case (that there are some people who will never participate in a riot, for example) but I wonder what the conditions are…

    Perhaps there’s some way we can “inoculate” ourselves from rioting; for example, I suspect that training for what to do if a riot breaks out might prevent that person from participating in riots altogether…

    If so, perhaps there’s a way to inoculate us from mass-murder participation as well. (I’m not 100% certain that anonymity of the monster is the way to go, in part, because it might not be achievable…however, anti-mass-shooting training might be key in preventing these things from happening…)

    Now, having said all this, I remember a brief TED talk that reminds us that this phenomena doesn’t just apply to evil things, by pointing out that second-adopters can be even more important than the initial leader, in getting the crowd to join in. The video gave an example of a single dancer inspiring a couple of people to start dancing, and after a certain threshold, the entire crowd started dancing as well.